8/25    Alright guys. Nikon D80 with 18-135mm lens for only $709:
        http://www.usaphotonation.com/products.asp?product_id=13642#acc
        \- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom
           enters the suspect range for distortion, although this may be
        \- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom mitigated
           for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's price if the
           lens measures up optically and in physical construction [some
           cheaper big zooms have had construction issues].  \_ don't
           bother with big zooms.  get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if you
           have the money; 30mm f/2 if you don't.  these big zooms tend to
           use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
           \_
           mitigated for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's
           lend bundled in for $700, that seems like a pretty good effective

           price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
5A5A       price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
           construction [some cheaper big zooms have had construction
           issues].
        \_ don't bother with big zooms.  get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if
           you have the money;  30mm f/2 if you don't.  these big zooms tend
           to have very bad optical qualities, AND that it is usually useless

           to use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
           \- do you think the poster above is really looking for a +$1000
                 \_ So you haven't ever touched a woman, huh?
           "starter" lens [17-35 f/2.8]? 30mm f/2? again, a big but cheap
           zoom with a long range will never be great, but DX format and
              modern  lens design and glass may mitigate this.
              modern lens design and glass may mitigate this. OP: it is

              quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX
              at the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures
              in the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
           quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX at
           the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures in
           the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
           decent lenses in that area are multi-thousand dollar lenses.
              \- oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for
                 somebody with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30%
                 on a prime lens unless he wants it for something very
                 specific. the 50mm 1.8 is $100 ... which would be around
                 the 85mm FX FoV and is a fast lens of decent optical
                \-
                 quality, eventhough not the most solid construction
                 [less imp for a small, light lens]. now are you going to
                 tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
           oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for somebody
           with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30% on a prime lens
           unless he wants it for something very specific. the 50mm 1.8 is
           $100 ... which would be around quality, eventhough not the most
           solid construction [less imp for a small, light lens]. now are
           you going to tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
        \_ if you want long end, fetch an used 70-210mm f/4-5.6  they are
           cheap and almost good enough.  (I personally find f/5.6 a bit too
           slow at the 210mm end... and i am using ISO400 all the time).
           And yes, my recommendation for newbies are: 17-35mm f/2.8,
           50mm f/1.8 and 70-210mm f/4-5.6 (go for an older 70-210mm f/4 if
           you can find one).  The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR is nice if you can
           afford it.