Well I am at least waiting for a better 70-200. Not that it's bad, but if it can be improved and they seem to feel forced to update it, I would be so sorry if I'd bought the current version only to find out two months later there's a new version.

But for sure Nikon could give some more attention to renewing their FX range. Then again, DX sells more volume so I can't blame them for putting effort into that. Something has to pay for the development bills after all, and I think it might well be DX lenses.

just to summarize all above: we need more FX lenses.

Actually you probably got to be in the photons to fully understand optics, but who cares really.
I am touched by your concern about seriousness of my life, but I don’t think it is something to be bothered about if you can’t justify an investment in a peace of glass.
70-300 is not as big and is much lighter then 70-200, but it is great lens if you want to travel light and get descent pictures, and it is more useful than 70-200. So if you do not have the need to impress somebody (any body) with the size of your lens do not torture your self by carrying that kind of weight.
On the other hand 70-200 is certainly the best mid tele lens for DX camera I know.

"I don't really get the remark about the 70-300 being as big as the 70-200"

I apologize if I gave you that impression. There is a clear size difference between the two. I have them side by side right now and the 70-200 is clearly bigger.

mb

the tools so matter when you want extra reach without having to sacrifice IQ as one would with a TC.

I don't really get the remark about the 70-300 being as big as the 70-200. You compare one with the hood and the other without? Then still I think the shear size of the front glass will impress more with the 70-200. But if you don't need to impress and just want to travel light or are on a tighter budget... who cares, as long as you get your pics.

I am however still waiting for a new 70-200 however... still have this worn down Sigma, but it's still alive so I can wait a bit longer!

And I only wish I could justify the 200-400.... maybe one day, maybe I should just go sell pics instead of just making them for fun ;)

gentoo - the comparison is between the 300/2.8 AF-S not the AF-S VR which is a better lens, but still 200-400 is really a great lens.

mb - sometimes it's not a question of either the lens is affordable or not, but rather do You really need one or not, for me photography is something I do in my spare time (probably the same for gentoo) - and therefore I need to add the WAF (thanks KG from the "D300 too much for newbie" topic) for every decision I make, as for IQ - please don't take Your life so serious, and like gentoo wrote (same topic as KG) "...you gotta be into electronics to fully understand..." :)

I don’t think lens IQ could replace your own, and there is no reason to kill anybody for the lens you could not afford, if you can’t afford it you don’t need it really.
The lens is just a tool of the trade, though it sometimes helps if you have better tools.

At the longer focal length though, the 200-400 seems to have better IQ, http://www.hickingbotham.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm

However, once you pass 500mm and get to 600mm, it opens up a whole new world.

gentoo - indeed we do agree with this, and also with the 200-400 (however, sometimes I think 300/2.8 + TC2x will do the work better, as You can get 600/5.6 instead of 560/5.6 from 200-400+TC1.4, and it's smaller to carry around)

To the OP;
Nikon makes a 17-35mm f2.8 lens,
Sigma makes a 120-300mm f2.8
there is 2 of your lens requests covered.
I think your idea of 45-150 f2 DC is a little over the top and the lens would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,000 which is just too expensive. And 150mm is just too short for most photogrpahers, especially since we have grown accustomed to the 70-200mm range.

One last thing. If changing lenses to go from 45-70 and 70-150 is really slowing you down, why not use a second body. One with the 70-200 and the other with the 24-70, this would ultimately give you more range covered and only one stop slower over your dream of 45-150.

Brennan the Vyper

"EdEnd - 70-300 with hood is really not that smaller than 70-200, so the impression part is not a factor, at least not for me. I used to have the 70-300 and it's a decent lens, has good price/value factor on hand, but the IQ is not even close to 70-200. I would say, that it's a good amateur lens, but once You want to take Your pictures a step further, Your option is either: 70-200/2.8+TC, 300/2.8 or 200-400/4."

So I lied in the other thread lol we do agree on this. I own both the 70-300 and the 70-200 and the quality difference between the two is clear! I've not used my 70-300 in about 6 or 7 months. Don't get me wrong, it's a good lens within it's limits. The pro lenses adamz mentioned are really worth it if you can afford them. I'd kill to have the 200-400.

EdEnd - 70-300 with hood is really not that smaller than 70-200, so the impression part is not a factor, at least not for me. I used to have the 70-300 and it's a decent lens, has good price/value factor on hand, but the IQ is not even close to 70-200. I would say, that it's a good amateur lens, but once You want to take Your pictures a step further, Your option is either: 70-200/2.8+TC, 300/2.8 or 200-400/4.

Picking the 70-300 over a 70-200 can be no problem if you have no real need for the extra stops. On holidays I normally carry around a D200 with the 18-200 and the results of that are just very nice. So using a 70-300 would be no big problem on the D700 either... although you will for sure look a lot less impressive ;)

One could think of it as a heresy compared to all potent 70-200, but I really like 70-300 on D700 even with teleconverter attached.
As for 14-24 if you are shooting landscapes I could not imagine anything better (well I could imagine a lot but this one is the best I know).
Maybe be not the best setup, but one could definitely include D300 in the bag and get great telephoto or sports shots with 70-200 (I know I am not consistent but who cares really).
Unfortunately I do not shoot clubs, local or otherwise.

I seriously need the entire range from 14-200+mm and preferibly at least 2.8. My best setup would be having two D700's with at least one carrying the 24-70 and the other, depending on the location, wide or tele. However I don't have the 2 D700's, so I'll have to see what conditions I'm in and then pick the right lenses for either the D700 or the D200's. So in the end I just keep changing back and forth anyway and still carry two cameras.

I guess being a concert photographer requires you to be at least a bit insane ;)

14-24: wide angle shots at local clubs
24-70: full body shots to upper body shots at local clubs and wide angle at big stages
70-200: headshots at local clubs, upper body shots at big stages
200+: anything closer than above on big stages

And let's not forget the primes...

I have to agree with adamz 100%. I've nothing else to add actually as I was just be repeating word for word :)

mirogo - I think that here You can find the answer to Your question about optimizing usability, it's an article by Thom Hogan (LINK)

as for me, the choice of lens is totally combined with the style of photography one prefers. if You do portrait than 24-70 is perfect for You, if You like landscapes than probably 14-24 will suite You better, if You like to shoot wildlife (as I do) than even the 70-200 with a 1.7TC (BTW, great combination) is not enough and You just pray to Santa to bring You either a 300/2.8 or a 200-400/4 (as all other are too big and heavy to put them in the over head compartment on most airplanes)

so summing up, there's no one way of choosing which lens to get or not, start with deciding what kind of photography suits You, and either You are willing to carry more or less weight with You, and either You prefer zoom or prime. moreover, what is more important for You the portability or the image quality.
If it's IQ than You must realize that it's gonna be expensive and heavy, if portability than IQ will be appropriate to quality of lens.

The only pro-zoom I own is the 24-70, and I do think that it is a bit awkward for a normal zoom on DX. Its not quite wide enough. Now that I've had it for a bit, I've just adjusted my shooting style and it works fine for about 90% of my shots (your feet are the ultimate zoom). Right now I carry the 24-70 on my primary body, and the 18-200 on a backup for when I need something a little wider or if I need more range.

If I know I won't need telephoto I slap my tokina 11-16 on my backup. My longer term plan is to get the 70-200 and then eventually upgrade my primary body to FX. I figure with the 24-70 on a D700, and a 70-200 on my D90, I'll have the perfect setup.

Of course if I'm just shooting for fun, then I'm not going to lug 2 cameras around with me.

I wouldn't doubt that Nikon has the technical capability to build such things, but the cost would be completely exorbitant, and the IQ would probably lag behind the equivalent primes. Fast primes are expensive, fast zooms even more so, as is DC, as is PC.

Concerning the remarks of AcquaCow:

The range of zoom objectives for the Nikon FX sensors goes from 12 to 200 mm (and up to 400).
The question is not to discuss the proposed global range itself, but “the splitting” in “focal-ranges” and resulting appropriateness of each “focal-range” for current use. Each “focal-range” should fit a purpose, and not only add together.

As examples:
12-24 mm objectives introduce big perspective distortions; what is the use of such a trade-off?
24-70 mm is of general purpose; but are there specific purposes that could be improved?
etc.

What “focal-ranges” are to be considered in order optimize usability? That is my question.

I have read your post twice, but I am not sure what it is about, what your problem is, or what you are asking.

Can you possibly rephrase it in a way that is easily understood? Do you have a question that you need answered?

If you are looking for longer range, DX would be the better choice... if 17mm is as wide as you want to go, you can just use a 10-24 on the DX...

-- Dave

When looking at the huge amount of objectives Nikon proposes, one may ask how to establish a choice that really fits to the needs.

For what kind of photograph?

- For amateurs and when starting, zooms with a wide focal-range are clearly a good choice.
- When searching expert or professional high quality, the choice is more restricted for technical reasons, as then we consider f/2.8, or better zooms.

The actual Nikon proposal in the digital FX range proposed here involves:
12-24 mm (wide), 24-70mm (standard), 70-200 mm (telephoto) – but this does not fit to my real requirements.

A more user adapted range splitting, at an f/2.8 opening, with more innovative technical options, and targeting specific uses could possibly involve:
17-55 mm (wide) for landscapes and architecture, providing SWM (or AF-S), shift and tilt correction,
45-150mm (small telephoto) for portraits, with Defocus-image Control, and a larger opening of f/2,
120-300 mm (telephoto) for difficult light and indoor events (such as proposed, but actually not stabilized, by Sigma).

A discussion on these items may be fruitful in order to assemble different requirements.