Windancer

I am sure you will get numerous answers but for me it would be the 180/2.8 because of both it's size and sharpness and the 85/1.4 because of it's sharpness and great bokeh. Just my thoughts..........

I hate to say it , but if you don't get it fixed, it would be a very expensive paper weight. I had to make a similiar choice with my 17-55/2.8 back in 2008. Terry

There are many better choices but personally I would go with the 24-120/4 zoom, it does give you the flexibility you need and although I have never used one from everything I have heard they are...

No sadly I missed that, sorry :-) Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does. Terry

I still have the 17-55 and I use it on my 3 DX bodies and it is a fine lens, I rather doubt you would ever be disappointed with it. Everything here was taken with a 17-55....

You have a very good point, the primes are much lighter and faster just not as flexible if that is your desire. Terry

Not sure this argument is valid any more. Years ago the zoom had nowhere near the image quality that a prime had. Nowadays I personally think almost all zooms rival the primes. I am fortunate...

Agreed.......+1 Terry

I would tend to agree with Paulski, What are you shooting? What are your needs? When you're out shooting, what are you lacking? Something wider? Something longer? These questions have to be...

As I always say you are only as good as your weakest link, I agree putting a mediocre piece of glass on your lens (no matter the price) will produce mediocre results. Just my opinion though.......

.......if anyone cares. :-) I'm certainly not speaking for Craig, just myself...... :-) I have been involved with photography for over 40 years and to this day i am still learning from the people...

I would tend to agree, I think the item in my sig says it all "Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that...

I too have used the Sigma 10-20/4~5.6 in the past and IMO is is probably the "best bang for the buck" lens around. It is my opinion that the variable aperture lens is slightly better than the...

I suppose they walk on water too!! A lens is a very subjective item, what may be good for me may not for you and vice versa. Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt, if they work for...

As numerous people have pointed out to you the Nikon 24-70/2.8 DOES take filters, I certainly beg to differ the Nikon 24-70/2.8 is the standard by which that other zooms are judged. Terry

Hi There You have gotten some good advice already, just going to add my thoughts. Firstly I guess we first have to know your definition of cheap is? $300, $500 maybe $1000. Secondly, I personally...

Do you need the 1.4 as oppossed to the 1.8? The difference is only 2/3 of a stop. Do you shoot wide open a lot? Just curious that's all. The 1.8 is far faster focussing. The only difference AFAIK...

Pardon my ignorance, but are you asking is it possible to make a 16-35 into a 16-45 or longer, say a 16-50? Terry

Obviously subtlety is not a strong suit in your native country!!! Terry

Jane I've learned a long time ago there is a time in our lives when an inch might make a difference, this isn't one of them. :-) Terry