All right, so the D300 has me thinking of moving over from my Canon 30D (that intro is bound to derail this but I thought a little context was appropriate). One of the many great things about Canon is that they have a very simple to understand way of demarking their lenses - L means it's metal and weather sealed. Some L's are expensive and others can be had for a little over $500 like the non-IS 70-200 f4L.
Nikon on the other hand appears to give folks all sorts of information in the lens titles (type of glass, that aperture is controled in camera only, etc.) but I've never picked up on any sort of clue in the lens names that helps one identify right off if it's a metal lens or weather sealed. It also appears that only some Nikon lens in the metal professional group are sealed and others are not? I'm just going by Nikon descriptions. For example, the 50 1.4 is metal (I believe) but is it dust/moisture resistant? So, I'm wondering if there's anything in the Nikon lens names that tells you about its construction quality or sealing?
Clix, Chip? Anyone. Thanks.
Okay - also I was thinking of a 50 1.4, a 20 2.8 (sooner) and an 85 1.4 (later). I've heard good things about the 18-200 DX as a do-it-all wonder - but Rockwell knocked the bokeh - which wouldn't be a shocker. Is he right on?
Thanks -
LG
Nikon on the other hand appears to give folks all sorts of information in the lens titles (type of glass, that aperture is controled in camera only, etc.) but I've never picked up on any sort of clue in the lens names that helps one identify right off if it's a metal lens or weather sealed. It also appears that only some Nikon lens in the metal professional group are sealed and others are not? I'm just going by Nikon descriptions. For example, the 50 1.4 is metal (I believe) but is it dust/moisture resistant? So, I'm wondering if there's anything in the Nikon lens names that tells you about its construction quality or sealing?
Clix, Chip? Anyone. Thanks.
Okay - also I was thinking of a 50 1.4, a 20 2.8 (sooner) and an 85 1.4 (later). I've heard good things about the 18-200 DX as a do-it-all wonder - but Rockwell knocked the bokeh - which wouldn't be a shocker. Is he right on?
Thanks -
LG