Thinking of switching from Nikon to Canon...

[Xjacktar]

The 80-200mm isn't great at f/2.8 anyway at more than about 135mm - passable but miles better at f/4. It'll be no different on FX....

Literally true that this lens 'isn't great', but definitely not poor; and shortening to 185 or stopping down to f/3.5 works wonders. A couple in my Gallery I think are OK at the 'poor' settings.

Personally, I wish I could get rid of the D700 at a reasonable price, though I love it. With a wide angle DX zoom added to my other lenses, the D7000 would be all I need.

 

[Martyn...]

A) we can't see it at 100%
B) it appears that there's still good light and the only reason the iso is so high is to compensate for the light loss of the teleconverter- in good light cameras do look good at high iso, butt when the light drops and you're working on the edge of your iso, struggling to be properly exposed- maybe having to add a little bit of fill light in post- that's when the newer sensors will start to break away
I have night shots with the d300 which look bad at iso 800

it's a proven fact that the newer sensors are 1fstop better than the old ones, look at the switch from the pentax k7 to the k7, massive difference, and the same with the d300 to d7000
not that i'm a technical freak or anything, I still shoot on film...
fwiw my 1dmk3 is a stop better than the d300


but don't let me put you off the d300- I still use one...

It looks pretty good for ISO3200 to me ... a lot of the time it is how the image is initially exposed that really helps keep the noise levels down.

fwiw if you want to see a massive difference you need to compare the D300 to the D700

 

[jojo90]

Do you really use the 80-200 much? Unless you have a reason to lug that behemoth around I doubt it sees much action?

I take it out quite a lot and it's OK for me using a BlackRapid RS strap. It's been all over the world including getting hammered on dodgy motorcycle taxis in Bangkok . Got some great shots hanging off the back of one of those... Having said that I have just picked up a 135mm f2.8 MF Nikor and I'm already appreciating the size difference! Not sure I could nail shots on the back of a motorbike without AF tho... although will likely end up selling it now I've seen the quality of the 135mm manual. Tack sharp @ f2.8. The 80-200 is rather conspicuous as well .

I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.8, I can't see that much difference in them tbh, the 85 is just the 50 but 3 paces closer, if you don't mind being so close to your subject for portraits (and I actually like it because I think you can 'feel' the connection in the final image) then i'd get rid of the 85.

I would tend to agree. I bought the 85mm off the back of reviews saying how great it was. I've been greatly underwhelmed by my experience with this lens... CA, not that sharp @ f1.8, and not much contrast compared to the 50mm 1.4. I'm going to hang on to it for a little while longer as I prefer the telephoto quality to the 50mm. Figure I need more time shooting with it to learn how to get the best from it. If not then eBay it goes!

so what i'd do is keep the d90 or the d7000, sell the 85, sell the 80-200 and the 35, keep the 17-55 as a walkabout on DX, and the 8.5 as a wide angle DX. Get a d700 and use the 50mm as your normal, use it on DX for portraits, get a 35mm f2 to replace the 35dx and use it on crop and FX

May well just do that . Thanks for the well thought out advice!

 

[technics100]

Aw man, just bought a D700, means I have to sell my D300 and most of my lenses to pay for the sucker..