I think those prices are comparable to the RRP's on the original kit lenses when they were launched so I'd guess the street prices will settle at roughly the same levels too eventually.

I sold one of those a couple of months ago for £58. You can see my original listing, full report and a sample photo here: link

Personally I wouldn't bother, the difference in framing between a 300mm and a 400mm isn't all that great to be honest. But if you just want to play then I picked my copy up for £20 and I'd say it was probably just about worth that much.

I was just about to but namstoop has soundly beaten me there...

Hello misterbri, I'm sure it will all come flooding back to you before too long

Well I tend to wave at other Saabers when I pass so make sure you wave back!

Congratulations to Darkmunk for a well deserved win and to Lilly for some very fine judging!

Anyone would think we were playing to the judge!

OK, I'll admit I was...

I know you don't have one, I was thinking of Steve's kind offer. After handling the K-7 last Saturday I'm sworn off touching another until I can actually afford to buy one...

That's fair enough, I've no problem with folk arguing the toss over whether features are worthwhile or not but I have to draw the line at disinformation as that's how rumours get started.

Off to dampen my powder now then...

I wasn't going to join in this thread but I have to take issue with that one; take a 1970's vintage pre-AI Nikkor lens (in fact, go the whole hog and take the 105/2.8 - one of the most sublime portrait lenses ever made bar none) and try to take pictures with it on your modern Nikon. Tricky huh?

The same lens will mount on a Pentax DSLR without an adapter where it will enjoy metering, focus confirmation and image stabilisation. In fact the same features I can enjoy using my 19th Century Ross Anastigmat. Not to mention the several million pieces of glass made in the last 50 years that actually were meant to go on the front of a Pentax in the first place.

Nikon may have reasonable backwards-compatability compared to, say, Canon or Sony (for example) but it's not even in the same ball park as Pentax and to claim otherwise is just kidding yourself. Sorry!

This is a huge topic and one that has many determining factors but to boil it down to one very important one:

If you're going to be wandering around in the field then a ring flash is much more convenient and wieldy than a pair of regular flashes.

If you're going to be doing most of your shooting in a controlled environment (like a studio) then twin flashes will give you greater power and flexibility to devise and tweak different lighting set ups.

As a ring flash like the new AF160 costs about the same as a pair of regular AF360's then money isn't neccessarily a factor, so think more about how you'll use your macro set up and go from there.