[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283614418' post='2481']

Thank you again Brightcolours for your effort and the (to me) very impressive pics. I can only hope that once I might be able to take pictures like that!!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I will keep your advice in mind when buying a macro lens, that is for sure. I am still leafing through the internet sites and have seen a Nikon 24-85 2,8-4 lens. Any idea how it would combine with a D700? As you can see, I have not quite given up on the D700 yet.

Kindly lupus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Well, a 24-85mm f2.8-4 should work ok. You will be able to get more shallow DOF than with the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX.



Field of view wise:

The 16-85mm is a 24-128mm full frame equivalent.



Depth of field wise:

f5.25-8.4 full frame equivalent.



So that is your main win, a quite big shallow DOF advantage.



You lose in focal length range (the long end, which would be covered by the 70-300) and VR.



Personally I would prefer the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM over the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR, because of the constant f2.8 (f4.2 full frame equivalent). Both have a silent ring type motor (AF-S / HSM), both have image stabilization (VR / OS).



On full frame, next to the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4, there is also the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di XR. Also no VR, but a constant f2.8 in a compact and affordable package. Choices, choices, choises!