[Steinar1]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283632022' post='2488']

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!

[/quote]

Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!!

Kindly, very confused wolf!