And as I grew accustomed to the D700, I came to realize what a pain in the neck could be when you see this awesome building, and you want to capture all the facade in one shot. I – most of the times – have the 70-300mm on, and from a reasonable distance, that's impossible to!
Now, if I want to catch let's say this facade with the 70-300mm, or a decent portrait, I either have to walk away to put some distance between me and the building or the subject, or... to spare 2 mins to remove the 70-300mm and to put on the prime 50mm.
With the 50mm, another pain! Is a prime lens, although fast, but rigid (!) – it gives me no focal range, and I need focal flexibility, especially if I'm in a dynamic environment.
See my point? The 70-300mm gives me a nice focal range, but it lacks wideness. The 50mm is wider – true – but rigid nevertheless. I am a casual photographer, and almost always I find myself at times when I need wide-angle. My actual gear does not match my expectations... I need a multi-purpose lens, to avoid switching from one to another, or to walk in and out on the subject.
So that's why I was considering purchasing a zoom wide-angle lens, either the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF, or the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. But! Nikon has just released the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G... which sort of caught my eye.
This is only 4mm narrower at the wide end than the 24-85mm and the 24-120mm, but goes all the way to 300mm. Let's not forget that Nikon threw in the VRII, the ED glass, which I miss on my actual 70-300.
I know that if I intend to go wide-angle, every mm counts at the wide end... my question is: would I be getting a good deal should I "sacrifice" the 4mm at the wide end, but I win on the telephoto end at least 180mm? As I said, I'm a casual photographer and I need a multi-purpose lens... I'd drop my two lens right away should I buy this one.
PS: follow this thread here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157625179484813/