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.

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.

the 80-200 has no VR which for a telephoto is kinda useless. The keep rate is just too low.
But yeah like you said, if they just wanna buy a lens that can deliver the job(telephoto) then just grap the cheaper ones if IQ is not a problem to them.
However, cheap things no good, good things not cheap. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 3:13 pm

For which of your lens? UV or CPL?

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.

im from melaka...

the 80-200 has no VR which for a telephoto is kinda useless. The keep rate is just too low.

1) He's talking about 24-70 on a DX body, not comparing 17-55 on DX and 24-70 on FX.
2) 16mm is not that wide for DX
2) Of course you can, but I said the keep rate is too low and it is very hard to get sharp focus especially at the longer end without VR. For example handheld shooting a bird without VR and to get a sharp pic you really need to have a hand of steel.

2) 16mm is not that wide for DX

2) Of course you can, but I said the keep rate is too low and it is very hard to get sharp focus especially at the longer end without VR. For example handheld shooting a bird without VR and to get a sharp pic you really need to have a hand of steel.

any boutique hotel for rec around jonker street??
seems like most of them are fully booked..."
comparing 80200mm & 70300mmvr.
i have better keep rate on my 80200mm.
it depends on the condition also...VR does help but it wont do miracle la.

if 16mm is not wide on DX.
what is consider wide on DX? 12mm??
and how to define an ultra wide for a DX??? 5mm??

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.

If bbuser91 did not complain about the 17mm end from the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens, why would he complain about 16mm? 

I'm more worried that he says the 35mm end from the 16-35mm f/4 is not tele enough...
If you talk about birding with 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses, you do not need a hand of steel. There is this thing called the tripod.  For large lenses, you'd want the full Wimberley head or the smaller Wimberley Sidekick with arca swiss clamp ballhead. When you put the lens on a solid tripod mount, you'd want to turn off VR anyways. 



Sorry lah. Example shows a C lens. 

if 16mm is not wide on DX.
what is consider wide on DX? 12mm??
and how to define an ultra wide for a DX??? 5mm??

for ur info.. 18mm in DX is consider wide d...

ultrawide is around 10-12mm

for FX, 24mm consider wide.. and 16mm consider UWA d..

dont believe me? google la

any boutique hotel for rec around jonker street??
seems like most of them are fully booked..."
comparing 80200mm & 70300mmvr.
i have better keep rate on my 80200mm.
it depends on the condition also...VR does help but it wont do miracle la.
, on Flickr
shoot bird without VR. i got hand of steel???

if 16mm is not wide on DX.
what is consider wide on DX? 12mm??
and how to define an ultra wide for a DX??? 5mm??

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. 

he didn't mention about 17-55 when he was asking about wide lens bro. don't believe me check it out yourself

and 17mm and 16mm give a lot of difference.
as much as 10-11 and 12mm. nominally they aren't a lot of difference practically. yeah! 

haha your bird is not even flying. 

u only said shooting bird with & without VR handheld ma.
didnt specify flying bird or fighting bird.

flying birdman.!!! XD

that's a flying black goku.

Yeah, but he seems like he made up his mind about the f2.8 in the previous post but searching for another wide angle which he says he wants to shoot really up close in the streets.

17 & 16 yes quite some significant difference but pay so much for that 1mm? Might as well get a proper DX wide angle zoom.

Anybody aware of the new patent that Nikon recently filed? The half mirror(similar to Sony's translucent mirror system) and the flash with built-in bounce system. Interesting.  

that's a flying black goku.