Scott--Yes, indeed awesome. Makes me wonder why they don't just ship a peacock with each body so everyone can get instant gratification!

Nice to see the 70-300 doing so well also. Until Nikon does something to update or replace the 80-400 the 70-300 is really the only budget alternative at the long/mid-range from Nikon (although for those willing to use another brand I have been impressed with the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500, but they are both much bigger and heavier than the 70-300).

--David

That would be something -- "We're so convinced of Nikon Total Imaging Quality that for a limited time, we're including a free peacock with every f/2.8 pro lens. And if you purchase two or more pro lenses, we'll also send you a small marsupial."

:-)

I don't know what I was more impressed with -- the 70-300 sharpness or the fact that shooting at ISO 400 did nothing to lessen the image quality. It's odd for Nikon to still have the 80-400 in the lens lineup. You're right, David... that is a lens that seems in need of a replacement. Especially now that FX is obviously where Nikon is going. Heck, I may actually get a Nikon teleconverter for the 70-200 2.8. I don't know if they would work with the slower lens.

Scott

Scott--If you're impressed by the D3 at 400 "you ain't seen nothing yet." Keep cranking the dial, as you've hardly started!

Yes, I've complained to Nikon a few times about the 80-400, most recently at PMA. But they refuse to say anything firm about an update of any type, so we've added a Sigma 120-400 to our safari loaner pool and it has been a smash hit. Last trip 3 folks with 80-400 lenses coming in ordered Sigmas before the trip was over.

Their 150-500 is slightly slower but for anyone who does a lot of bird photography and doesn't need the speed it's a good option also.

On TC, a 1.4 or even 1.7 Nikon will work great with your 70-200. It isn't worth (IMO) messing with TCs on any of the slower lenses. They lose speed, AF, and quality. These days it's simpler and provides a better image to crop in PS than mess with a TC on anything other than an f2/2.8/4 lens (again IMO).

--David

David and Weldon,

Wow! Just did a client/event shoot the other day featuring a performance from Peter Yarrow (Peter Paul & Mary). It was at an industry trade show, mix of fluorescent lighting and random booth lighting, etc...

Shot JPGs with the D3 and the 17-35 2.8 lens. Wow. Half the time I didn't even shoot with flash! I actually cranked it up to ISO 1200 and shot totally usable images that seemed more like my old 400 ISO stuff -- no problem cropping them, either.

Using flash with ISO 500-600 kept things super sharp and with very little drain on my SB-800. Both the camera and the wide zoom really exceeded my expectations. Next week I'll get to do some fine art shooting with it up in NH, but the shoot this week instantly re-affirmed for me the merits of the pro body. It just handles "better" than the prosumer bodies.

Scott--Awesome that everything worked so well. I'll second the amazing low ISO of the FX sensor for sure. I haven't tried it with the 17-35f/2.8 though but sounds like a winning combo from your write-up.--David

Yeah. It's interesting reacquainting myself with the FX perspective after 8-10 years of shooting DX. But the 17-35 2.8 looks fantastic so far. I'll let you know how it works on the scenic stuff next week.

I had a 17-35 and traded it back in for the 28-70 AFS f/2.8.
It was as sharp but too close for my Event work on a D1.
In 10 years this lense has never needed any work including cleaning.

While everyone else seems to be making up for loosing the DX 1.5 crop with tele lenses,
surprising to me, I am going wider now that I have a D3.
I sold my 200-400 and 300-800 and just got a 14-24 AFS f/2.8
I love it for all kinds of shots, but especially landscape.
The lack of filters is no problem for me as I have never scratched one and quit using shades and a polarizer years ago.