HI There
1. the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8 AFS lenses (not so interesting focal lengths on the D300).
I actually don't think so. 21mm is plenty wide for me, I guess I'm just not a wide boy. I think 14mm cropped with all that depth of field would be pretty good. In fact in my agency days I don't think I ever submitted hardly anything wider than 24mm. I had the canon 24 f1.4mm, which I liked, but only ever used it with film. Mind you, as I was mainly shooting endangered species for agencies 300mm was standard 70- 200 was my wide zoom and the 100mm macro was the super wide. So I guess 24 equated to a full frame fisheye from my perspective.
I used to have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 on a 1D and the 1.3 crop made it a great studio lens. Maybe it was a little short for portraits. I had a 135 f2 for those. I guess it's down to style. So maybe I just don't have style :toocool:
I've currently only got your cast offs and a 16-85 for a do it all lens. Just got a new one today as last one was faulty. Soft area at around 50mm, top left just about at the rule of thirds intersection, As you said on an earlier thread "Go figure". I wouldn't have noticed it but I was shooting a swimmer with some kids and his face was out on several shots.
I'm not sure where I need to go lens wise. The 17-55 does my artist reference studio work, but I wish it was a bit longer. The 70-200 portraits and "Venture" type shoots. and both or maybe just the 16-85 cover my press type work. The good thing about the 16-85 is I could get by with it if I had breakdowns.
If I had a lot of studio work I'd get the 24-70, but again I'd like it a bit longer, see it's that old wildlife background. I tried out my D300 on a new model and shot a portrait, it's around the forum somewhere. I had it at 200, 300mm in real money so back to what was my standard lens.
Probably no hope for me, Is there?
David.