new lens (Nikon 17-55 mm f2.8)/MA foliage

[Andy]

Carol: Congratulations on the new lens. As I have said to you privately, you won't regret the purchase. The 17-55 2.8 is one of the Nikon "gold band" "pro" lenses. They are as good as Nikon gets and perhaps rival some of the old classic Zeiss (I am sure Nikon disagrees with my use of the word, "rival" ) lenses that Leica was so famous for back "in the day." Contrasty, great bokeh, and sharp at all apertures. Thats what 3 - 4 times the price will get you!

I had the great opportunity to meet and spend about 1/2 day with <A HREF="http://www.transient-light.com">James Moore</A>, Pittsburgh area teaching pro and inspiration to me (if you haven't seen Jim's work, you should -- it is really, REALLY good!). Two of his comments that day are still resonating with me. One was that the best, INEXPENSIVE equipment improvement any photographer can make is to buy a bubble level (see, Al, I told you that you will like Jim), and more to the point, the BEST equipment improvement a photographer seeking "the next level" (as I have <A HREF="http://lightcentric.wordpress.com/page/ ... ">recently blogged</A> about) can make is to move to "pro" quality glass.

I am convinced, and Carol, you have motivated me toward a plan to do just that. Because of the "35mm equivalent" FX sensor in my camera, I am planning to acquire, sometime in the next year, the pro Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 2.8 VRII. Not sure if I will keep the 28-300 or not. For the longer reach, I have some options, including borrowing my old 300 2.8 from my buddy, who (just to make it more convenient for me, I am sure), moved just a mile away from me recently

EDIT: Sorry folks. No idea why the html links aren't working here. Have checked and double checked and I THINK I have it coded right.

[Utah Baker]

WOW! The sharpeness and clarity of those photos, certainly says it is worth it! The photo bug can sure bite hard, I have to remind myself I don't have the time or money.......at least not right now!

[Andy]

Carol: A couple points on the "longer glass." First, remember that with the DX sensor in your Nikon, the 200 is really closer to 300 (from what I have read, the 18-200 and the 28-300 are really not the full 200/300 on the long end. When I bought the 28-200, I had a 70-300 copy and confirmed this, though it is nominal).

Second, alot depends on the use for the lens. For example, the 70-300 4.5-5.6 (but was VR). It was very sharp (approaching pro-quality, imo). It was also light and inexpensive (around $4-500). However, you are going to be using higher ISO a lot of the time. Might be a good wildlife or birding lens. But not going to have that nice bokeh that the 2.8 gives you. Contrast that with the fixed length lenses. My Tokina Pro 300 mm 2.8 lens was a $2500 lens (expect Nikon to be about twice that), and was big and heavy (no handholding, and for good birding results, you really wanted a gimbal type lens). I know there are fixed focus copies out there in the 400 mm range that are affordable, but again, they are only going to be as fast as f4 or smaller apertures.