>I doubt an 18-200mm lens for FX will appear, firstly because >it will be enormously large and heavy, and perhaps more >importantly because those who shoot FX take quality seriously >don't want the compromises inherent in a 'one-size-fits-all' >lens. > >John >www.blokewithacamera.co.uk
Just to clarify, by FX equivilent of the 18-200 VR, I meant a high-quality 28-200 or 28-300 with VR, metal lens mount and respectable image quality. Even an FX equivilent to the 16-85 VR (i.e. a very good, newly-designed 24-120 VR) would be great.
Right now, the only downside to my move to the D700 is the current lack of a good-performing, compact, all-in-one full frame lens, preferably with VR. Nikon offers the 24-85 2.8-4.0, which is a decent performer, but it lacks AF-S, it lacks ED elements, it lacks VR, it is larger because it is not a G lens, and zoom range is not as versatile as the excellent super-zooms that Nikon has produced for the DX format. I understand that the 24-120 has marginal image quality. And that is about all that Nikon offers in the normal zoom or super-zoom area, other than the 24-70, which is heavy and has a relatively limited focal range.