Just a word on the crop factor discussion which has been raised a couple of times on this thread. Crop factor does not equal any additional reach. It\'s the increased pixel density typically associated with crop sensors that provides the effective reach. The 1D2 (being an 8mp sensor on a 1.25 crop) is almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the D3/D700 (8.2um vs 8.4). The effective reach advantage of the 1D2 is 1.02 meaning that on a D700, 200mm will look about the same as 196mm on a 1D2. Really, no difference.
I\'ve converted over from a 1D3 to the D700. Very satisfying to go to indoor sports events and shoot at ISO 3200 with no worries at all. I love the 70-200VR but I don\'t use it for landscapes. The 24-70 (recently sold) is also a fantastic lens but expensive. I picked up a 20-35/2.8D at a very reasonable price and it\'s great. I chose to simply add a 50/1.4 (trying the Sigma now) and loose the 24-70 to save cash. The 24-70 and 70-200 is a killer combo for starters though. I also might consider the new Sigma 24-70 HSM if reviews are positive. I\'ve never been satisfied with the AF-S 300/4. It\'s not a bad lens, just haven\'t been quite satisfied. I\'ve found the 1.7TC (not available in Canon) works very well with the 70-200 with results not much worse than the 300/4 (VR could be a part of that). Nothing beats the 300.2.8 IMO. If you can find the AF-S or AF-S II versions (prior to VR) you can have great optical quality if you can live without the VR. I\'ve seen the AF-S I version selling for around $2500 but hard to find.
Good luch with the switch.
Mar 07, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Previous versions of csd2020's message #6805253 « Okay guys, please set me up... »
