Slim might not be a good thing. You'll struggle to put on the lens cap.
Lots of pro says never use Hoya as it is overpriced and their coating is on top of the glass instead of in between.
I have no idea. But I'll go with B+W anyday.

It's obvious he meant the top LCD.
Try and read or go Youtube watch about the latest dslr bro.

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.

You'll never regret getting a good filter(B+W). Less effect on IQ and much much much much much much easier to clean!

Yes, but the body is so tiny small that when you change the settings using the viewfinder you're scrubbing your face every time.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 12:28 PM

Take the FX lens. It is always better quality than DX lens especially fitted on a DX body.

Both 70300 are G lens.

Yes, i'm suggesting the 70300 VR too. The others might as well not buy and save the money.

The 70300VR is so so, the other two are piece of junk.

How can you gain more shutter speed without VR? VR is to help you to be able to shoot in slower shutter speed.
The most likely reason for not having the VR is because it's too heavy even without the VR.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:03 PM

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

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:03 PM

bigger aperture gain longer shutter speed? What the......

for cheap telephoto just get the 70300 VR

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:09 PM

Bigger aperture to gain longer shutter speed makes no sense at all, of course we would naturally think he would meant will a lens w/o VR have any effect on shutter speed.

yes, but the VR is about ability to gain 3-4 f stops which is the shutter speed. You gain ISO from able to shoot longer shutter speed not the other way round.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:16 PM

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

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:26 PM

f2.8 doesn't mean anything about focusing speed.
if you mean you want a 17-50/55 f2.8 with faster focus I think the siggy & nikon is faster than tamron.
and all three 17-50/55 is for DX.
if you got the money and you don't mind it's a DX lens then just go with the nikon. Siggy and tamron all have quality issue especially after 1 or 2 years.

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!!!

that lens is best not to know it existed, or else you'll get poison kau kau