One advantage of having slimmer frame is that it prevents vignetting especially when used with wide lenses.

anyone from malacca here?
thinking of going down jonker street for a day or 2.

Yeah, because the entry-level dslr doesn't have the top LCD to change settings, in order to do so they have to rely on the screen which consume a lot of battery power.

doesnt the entry level viewfinder show info such as shutter / aperture / iso?

Guy what do you guy think about 17-55mm f2.8g , it is without VR , or nikon purposely make it w/o VR because the f2.8 so we can gain more shutter speed?

Teach me thanks !  thinking to get that

The main purpose of VR is so that you can shoot longer shutter speed without having blur your image and also aid parkinson's disease photographer. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:03 pm

Yep, no point spending so much on a DX lens, might as well upgrade to FX lens and buy a FX body.

guys... he said izzit because the big aperture f2.8 can gain more shutter speed... 
why all say without VR

17-55mm f2.8 got OOF
Haha maumau , only you can understand me lol !! hahaha

The 35 1.8G is only bout rm780
the 17-55 cost a bomb that's why might as well buy the 24-70 and upgrade the body.

the f2.8 generally help you to shoot in low light situation, yes if you mean boost as in reducing the shutter speed.
But why not get the 24-70 and so that next time you can use it on a FX body?
It's not worth the money IMO to spend so much on a DX lens.
there's the siggy 17-50 which is cheaper if you're looking for f2.8.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:25 pm

Me too, but may be he wants to cover the wide ends too. I would never spend so much on DX.
Get the 24-70 and eat bread everyday to save for a FX body. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:26 pm

reviews from ken rockwell?
take it with a pinch of salt.

Not about the problem geng or not geng ,

is about the coverage you want and the aperture , fast len

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:33 pm
Ic ... thanks you

24 would become 36 on DX which is very tight for landscape.
it will become like 17-55 perspective but with the bigger sensor you get a lot MORE!!!

However, cheap things no good, good things not cheap. 

Errr... Buy the 24-70 AND upgrade to D700?  Wouldn't that break the bank?
What are you guys talking?  Isn't 17-55 on DX equal to 25.5-82.5? That's very similar to 24-70 on FX. 
On the DX and if you happen to use the 17-55, do you see yourself using more wide end or on the tele end?

If on the wide side, perhaps you can settle for the cheaper 16-35mm f/4 which is a stop slower lens than the 24-70mm f/2.8?
Must a lens have VR for it to become useful? How did people shoot with Nikon when the earlier 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses were without telephoto but yet still delivery stunning images?

I sometimes think we rely too much on technology. With proper shooting technique, you'll have no problems getting high keep rates with the 80-200mm f/2.8.

Besides, if you're into shooting fast action sports, you'd usually shoot without VR since VR interferes slightly with the focus acquisition and the time the camera needs to lock focus. Of course VR is useful during panning but even then it's not necessary.

I said it is not THAT wide, I didn't say it isn't wide.
For DX there's only few wide angle lens that is really wide. Like the 12-24 & 10-24.

I know, but he's asking for lens wider than 17mm, coz he's planning to buy a 17-55 and another wide angle, of course suggest something much wider than 17mm la. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 4:54 pm

haha your bird is not even flying. 

I have old lens from my dad. I ransack it from the store. A very old one but still in good condition. Those lens have no AF or AF-S lens so I want to know if it work on Nikon D3100 DSLR. If it does, I might buy it 

Yeah just a few days ago at Funan Singapore with my friends, coz the shop didn't have the stock for the 24-120 my friend was looking so he ask us to try this out which is a bit cheaper but got longer range.

And I ask him to let me try the 70-200 2.8 too. The 28-300 at 300mm indoor I have to bump up the ISO to 6400 and there's some vignetting altho the image is quite sharp. However, when I compare it with the 70-200 it's like heaven and earth. But it's okay if you're not too demanding it's a nice lens that offer pretty sharp image but it's a lil too dark sometimes thru the viewfinder especially compare to the 70-200 which is a much faster lens.

my vote goes to 70-300 VR ...

almost wanted to get it last time but went for Tokina 11-16 instead ... no regrets getting the Tokina ...   

the 12-24 has a longer range & is slightly better IQ ... but the Tokina is a bang for buck lens to me cos i usually shoot at 11mm ...   

---

Added on February 18, 2011, 2:07 pm

24 f/1.4,  24-70 f/2.8 ,  70-200 VRII ... complete set ...     

sorry. i was thinking to get all prime lense

D3100 cannot AF with prime lens right since prime lens dun have AF...and D3100 body dun have AF too?

What about AF-S lens?