chancetlu said:
Personally, I would add the 70-200 first. I had a D40 for 2 years using only the 18-200 and found it impossible to shoot basketball games or high school football games. I upgraded to the 70-200 a year ago and used it along with the 35mm 1.8 exclusively on the D40 until a few weeks ago when I finally upgraded my body.

What body did you upgrade to?

Thanks!

I would add a third feature the D300s has the D90 lacks - ability to meter AIS and PCE lenses. Not an issue for what you shoot, but as an ardent macro shooter, I want the 85/28 PCE and I don't want to chimp or meter manually. One of the reasons I haven't pulled the trigger is that it's hard to justify an additional $1,700 (D300s with, strap, memory, quick release plate...) after spending $1800 on the lens. The other reason I haven't is because the D90 is so very good.

Agree that the 70-200 range is great... although for the price and the way I shoot I think the 150 macro and the 18-200 does fine for me :-) one day I hope to find a cheap 70-200VR in a shop somewhere and if I have some spare cash I may grab it. but for the moment I am happy .. There is still a lot I want to try on the lenses that I do have. ... Love chips too but I am watching my weight.. Thinking of doing the Sydney city to surf this year...

heartyfisher ...jeepers you must get a lot of Omega3 and hold back on the chips.

Ive got a 100/2makro that I cannot take off and simply choose by mood if I want to take a 28 or 35 with me for the day. Ive also got 21 and 50/2makro but they are for interior or when I want a mild tele. If I want I can load the lot up in a small (very small) backpack and even throw a tripod over my shoulder.

The 70-200 range makes huge sense, I've just decided its not for me but can see why it would be to others. Was looking at the vrII, but its just not my bag baby.

At the wide end and in the middle, its primes for me. AF and VR for the longer end past 100mm and thats my lens plan.

...Oh and I like chips.

Thats great! I had to do it by hand !! :-) You will also need to look at another espect. were they taken quickly from wide to tele and back to wide? or were most in batches of tele than batches of wide. also your tele shots from 70-200 were they evenly spread from 70 to 200 or were there clusters there too. (You did say that most were at 200, what were you taking at 200?)

You should also try and analyse your main subjects and lighting. Not just for the pictures you took but as you review them think back to see what you wished you could have taken but couldn't.

When I analysed my shots, about 2/3 were in the 140-200 range with a cluster at 200 and a cluster at 170 and a cluster at 135-150 and almost nothing between 50-120. small cluster at about 65-70. Many times I was taking at 18-24 then back to 160-200. So now a days when I am out for photo fun I have 2 cameras. one with the 12-24 and the other with my 150 macro and in the bag I will have my 35-70 and my 50 prime and TC1.4 Have been thinking of getting the 80-400 for some time.. but its about to be replaced.. so I will wait as I do love being able to tele and macro quickly.

Thought it only fair to give a spot of feedback to oneANT & Heartyfisher after your good advice. I found that excellent plug-in for Lightroom that lets you filter your library by focal length. Lo and behold all the information at my fingertips in 5 minutes :-)

It looks like fully a third of my shots fall in the 70-200 range - with most of them sat squarely at 200, so that confirms my instincts about the telephoto end. Another third are clustered on 18, 24-27 and 35. The remainder spread pretty evenly between 35 and 70.

That gives me a clear plan for the long end and shows up the importance of a wide zoom - preferably wider than 18mm - to look at in future...

Yeah, seriously, the dual card and 100% view finder are the only "envy" points, the D90 manages pretty well otherwise, surprisingly. . .

I went from two years with a D300 to a D90 now, and I don't miss the D300. I don't usually shoot the things shivas listed above, though (I do mainly portraits and events). I would like the dual slots on the D300s and other small things, but it's not worth the difference for what I'm doing.

U would be hard pressed to see much lacking in the d90 compared to the current d300s IF you aren't shooting in extreme weather, extreme sports, fast wildlife (birds, pumas, etc), or sports....
I just sold my d200 for that reason alone, I shoot events and landscape and didn't need th sealing or speed the heavier body offers....

Hey ! This has given me some really solid advice to consider.

It's nice to know that other people have used the 70-200mm f2.8 on D40 / D60 bodies and found this a usable combo - at least for a while.

oneANT - that's a great tip about reviewing my pics for the most common focal lengths - should keep me out of trouble for a while :-)
gelu88 - your point about needing to get the light in for the best autofocus is something I hadn't thought about, cheers.

I'd best start looking for a good lens then ... fortunately it sounds like the VR 1 model of the 70-200mm f/2.8 performs extremely well on a DX body - If I can pick up a mint used example that should be a real keeper.

I do find it interesting that so many people are recommending the D90. By personality i'm not inclined to trade up step by step through different models. I prefer to work out what I'm interested in, save the cash, then go straight to something that I intend to keep for several years.
I know that I won't be happy to settle on a D90 long term so it's not in consideration, but by following the general advice here and buying glass first body later, then maybe it's successor could be.

Thanks everyone !

I had a look at the 70-200vr last night (love struck sigh!)
Its a very useful zoom range ...a keeper that would be great to build a lens plan around.

I started out with the 18-200 and thought I'd build my plan around it. Realized that I wouldnt have a plan till I got rid of it.

With the 70-200, a prime at 50 and another prime at 35 ...you would have a kit.
Adding to it, you would later get a wide zoom and you would be finished.
All you might want to do after this is add a longer than 200mm but for me I have set a limit at 100mm but its under some pressure.

Play around with FLs, because Im a street nut Im in the 20-50 range and a 100 that gives me too much fun. If I was a sports shooter, pervy old man hiding in the reeds at the beach or landscapes or CIA agent then I'd have specific FLs and apertures for those pursuits. mmmm... pervy, will have to ask Niko whats in his kit.

+ 1 for Exit aka oneANT ... re looking at your pics for your Fav Focal lengths. one great advantage of the 18-200 is you get to find out what FL you like best. each person is different. AND it sure was a surprise for me to discover what my fav was... for me it was about 140-180 so I got a 150 f2.8 macro and I can shoot all day and all night with that one lens. I use it for macros, tele scenerires, as a tele and with + my 1.4TC works well I use it for portraits and I use it for stage events !!... for me its great but I know others will find it thoroughly restrictive!! my other FL is at 18 to 20 so my 12-24 slots right in too.. So go look through your images and see what your favs FL are and look for primes or small range high quality glass in those ranges.

One of the reasons I suggested the D90 is its really good value now and you will still have money to get a good prime in your FL.

+1 for Niko
You will get an immediate gain and the lens will follow you as you upgrade bodies.
The trick of the upgrade path is a balance of progressively improving the pics and to lose as little money along the way. The alternative is to simply drop everying now and buy at the top end in one whack and be done with it.

Good glass will make your D60 shine, you will extend your use of it as its not going to be a great trade in item for something new. Use it till you feel its holding you back ..you'll know when that is.
The 18-200, well thats holding you back, its a great snapshot lens and that is what it was always supposed to be. If you want to develop past snapshots then I'd say keep the 50mm and look at a wide zoom and as you already suggest another zoom on the longer side.
Go back look at your pics ...where is your critical FL. For me its in two FLs 35 and 100 so I focus there and just dabble around the edges.

I'd keep the D60 and just buy better glass. Wait another year or so and then buy a new D400 or the D90 replacement. Besides by this time next year the D90 replacement will probably be priced very close to the current D90 price!

Although I rarely use it, I still like the D60. It's not as bad of a camera as people make it out to be.

ditto on the D90, the performance of AF in low light is 100% a function of how much light the sensor gets. 2.8 lenses gies you that, a D300 will not.

also as a D60 owner who plays with a D300 from time to time, i would not say the D300 is is a "travel" camera. the D90 can be.

so i'd go with a D90 and 70-200 combo.

I agree with Ted and hearty. If you don't shoot sports besides climbing, the D90's AF should be adequate. Save the difference and save up a little more for the 70-200 2.8 and TC combination.

I too would recommend trying the D90. If you're used to the size of the D60, the D90 might fit better than the D300s. The improved ISO and better AF might be all you'll need, plus, it's about half the cost. If wildlife is your goal, then you'll really need to look into long, relatively fast lenses that are both large and costly. I'm waiting for the redesign of the 80-400, 300/4, or a rumored new 100-500 for wildlife shooting. The 200-400/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 are out of reach financially for most people and all of the third party lenses seem less interesting (to me).

I would get a D90 and use the video capability for your holiday shots.. Its also has about 1 to 1.5 stop ability over the D60. Its got a built in motor so you can pick up cheap and good AFD glass. Its lighter than the D300S. it has a tiny bit better low light performance over the D300S. Its got much better AF performance over the D60 but not as good as the D300S. But it may be more your technique rather than the camera that is limiting you in this area. If you use the center focus point and do "focus recompose" you can probably improve on your focus locks.

I would not use a TC on the 18-200. But I dont really know how it will work with the TC17. Cant imagine that it would be very nice.

the 70-200 is a great lens but for holiday? I think I would still prefer my 18-200.

Personally, I would add the 70-200 first. I had a D40 for 2 years using only the 18-200 and found it impossible to shoot basketball games or high school football games. I upgraded to the 70-200 a year ago and used it along with the 35mm 1.8 exclusively on the D40 until a few weeks ago when I finally upgraded my body.

Hi everyone. Advice and opinions would be very welcome on this one please ....

As I travel quite a bit on business I bought a D60 so that I could bring back some of the sights to family and friends. I chose Nikon at the time so that I could get the 18-200 VR and this has been my one camera - one lens combo for the last couple of years.
This is a great compact kit but obviously has some limitations which have become more of an issue to me over time.
The biggest is low light performance. My sightseeing tends to take place in the evenings - I take what light I can get and rarely have the chance to come back when conditions are "better".
Second is autofocus, in poor light and with only three points there are times when the D60 takes a while to lock on.
Third is being limited to 200mm when i'm out in the hills and want to take shots of wildlife or friends climbing.

I see two ways forward:
1. Get a higher spec. body - For me the reach of DX and smaller size are more important than the abilities of FX. I'm looking at D300s because it looks to be better than the D90 in both of the characteristics that I want to improve.
2. Get (a) faster lens(es) - I've already added a 50mm f1.4 but I could get a used 70-200mm 2.8 VR for similar outlay to a D300s and gain 2 stops on a lot of my shooting that way. It sounds like a great lens - better quality than the 18-200 and adding a 1.7x TC would be the most affordable way to get some extra reach when i'm out in the hills but it's a big addition for airline carry-on.

Which would you do first - put a 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 on my D60 body and upgrade the camera in a couple more years, or buy the D300s and get more use out of my 18-200mm ? Thanks !