Id like to keep the option of shallow DOF there and this is why I am more interested in 2.8 lenses. Would you go for the f4 Pentax 17-70 over the 2.8-4 17-70 Sigma Mike?

Right I got a few primes, I got the amazing 50-135mm I got a 10-20 Sigma. However no matter how hard I try there are times when I just need a 16/17-x0 .

I do have the 18-55 WR kit but I do not particularly like it (sorry to everyone that raves about it) and I would like the 2.8 aperture.

I am open to suggestions but given the amount of lenses I own currently (40mm and 35mm the 21mm) I do not want to spend a heck of a lot of money which almost rules out the 16-50 unless there is a very good reason to get it over the alternatives.

So from the 17-50 Tamron, 17-70, 17-50 Sigma which would you go for? Are there other options I am not aware of?. BTW I had the Tamron in Nikon fit and though the IQ was really good the AF speed left plenty to be desired.

Don't particular like the WR 18-55 that came with my Pentax... maybe it is just me but I found the 18-55 from Nikon better (although it feels like a little toy compared to the Pentax) and not anywhere near the 17-50 Tamron.

i scanned the document and didnt say a figure so i presumed it didn't mention one... apologies. I guess it saves on weight/bulk over the OS version?

The article does not mention price does it?

I was toying with the idea of the 15mm but then I wondered why not spend the money on the 16-50 as the difference is negligible and you get a much more flexible. And when I am after wide the 15mm is not as wide as I would like it to be anyway so I have settled for the 10-20 Sigma which is a good though not outstanding lens. Having said that 28 is quite long on a cropped body I think.

Of course the UWA lenses are a bit of an acquired taste I like them but I am not good enough a photographer to produce very good shots with them...

50-135 for me. Absolutely fantastic lens although it is not the most versatile lens around. However it seriously depends on when you ask me. I loved my 50-135 while in Barcelona so I've chosen that but if i am going light I couldn't swap the 40mm for anything

The low light capabilities of the D700 are a step up from the D7k/K5 sensors as is DR. I don't think there is much doubt about that.

However to take advantage of the camera you will need fairly heavy expensive FF lenses. I moved from the D7k to a K-5 precisely because the Nikon cameras/lenses are quite heavy especially if the lens features VR.

Hi Chris,

I am not sure you are receiving my messages, I am very interested, just wondering how you would like to get paid, I am happy to do a BT straight away.

Ok excuse my ignorance, in which case Chris as long as it lacks scratches and dust I will have it! Thanks for the clarification guys!