D700 all-prime plan

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, your point is a valid one and I don't doubt that the cameras you mentioned are excellent. Bottom line, I really need a body I can grow into, and I don't see the sense in spending $1700 for a D300 when for $650 more, I can get the camera I really want. High ISO performance alone is important enough to me to justify it. I'm OK with building my lens collection slowly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a wise choice, IMO. The D700 and D3 are better than DX cameras in a number of ways. I could never go back unless i needed to shoot distant wildlife with very long lenses.</p>

<p>The problem is that Natalie's prices are not accurate. B&H currently has the D300 for $1570 (need to add it to the shopping cart to show the actual price). The D700 is more like $800 to $900 more. That is plenty of money for some nice lenses.</p>

<p>I have one of them each and like them a lot. The D700 is an excellent choice provided that you have some good lenses to put in front of it.</p>

<p>I have the D700 and I'm a big fan of primes. The only zoom I own is the 14 24 f2.8.<br>

Although I dont have the 24-70 I'm thinking of getting one. It's one of the best lenses that money can buy.</p>

<p>Given that I'm covered form 14mm to 50mm with fast pro glass so It's a tough call with the 24-70 and I may get the 85mm f1.4 rather than the 24-70<br>

Dont worry about dust, it's never been an issue for me. I shoot mainly social documentary and street and would change my lenses two to three times on ant given shoot. Dust has never been a problem.<br>

My ultimate lens kit would be -</p>

<p>28mm f1.4<br>

50mm f1.4 (have)<br>

85mm f1.4</p>

<p>Luxury lenses that are nice to have and would be be<br>

14-24 f2.8<br>

24-70 f2.8 (have)<br>

105 macro VR</p>

<p>Dont discount older af-d lenses though. I have some really nice AF-D glass that works fantastic on FX. As do some of the older manual AIS lenses. The performance of AF-D and AIS glass on my D700 is the main reason that i've not purchased any new glass other than the 50mm AFS-S and the 14-24 AFS. My older lenses work fine so why upgrade if you dont really need to. If you go down the route of second hand AF-D glass you will bt able to get some really nice primes for the cost of a 24-70.</p>

<p>I should piont out the the lens list above is a list that suits my style of work and how I shoot. Depending on what you shoot, you may need different glass for different reasons.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I got a Nikon-refurbished D700 locally for $2100, plus 3-year accident warranty for $150 more. I'm satisfied so far, but I've only had it about a month. It's something to consider.</p>

<p>As for primes, it's really unclear what you want to do with them. I too have a lust for primes and have been building a collection for the last two years or so, but each purchase was made with a specific application in mind. You don't want to get a bunch of fixed focal length lenses only to find out you don't really use them that much.</p>

<p>That said, my favorites are the 85mm f/1.4 (for people) and the 180mm f/2.8 (for animals, and people). I also tried the 105mm f/2.5 non-AI in a pawn shop...thought it was beautiful but decided I didn't need it.</p>

<p>And I can also recommend the 35mm f/2 over your 35mm f/1.8 DX. Those vignetted corners cut out a significant part of the frame, leaving you with basically a normal field of view. And won't you be annoyed having to crop every single picture you take with that lens? If you're concerned about f-stops, the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is mostly marketing.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about whether Nikon might release new versions of anything soon, except that it might lower the prices of the current items. The current lenses are very good, and will last a long time. My 180mm is actually the 1987 AF (non-D) version, and while it has a cheap-looking plastic exterior, it makes wonderful pictures.</p>

<p>Natalie said: "<em>I do a lot of low-light, shallow DOF shooting,</em> "</p>

<p>Shun, your example looks like it was shot in bright sunlight and the aperture mentioned is f/8; while the example is interesting it couldn't be much further away from "low light, shallow DOF". Try the D700+35/1.4 at f/2.8 (or wider) compared to any equivalent FOV lens of your choice on the D300 at f/2.8 (or wider), and the D700 will most likely blow away the D300 even at base ISO, not just at high ISO; this has been the case with my D3 vs. D200 testing. With normal FL primes at wide apertures the effective difference in low light ability between the D3 and D200 was about five stops, partly because the D3 doesn't sample the lens at as high frequencies (due to the larger sensor area it still gives a good image) and thus gives a better image at wide apertures where the lenses typically don't resolve that high frequencies, and partly because of its high SNR. The D300 is a bit better than that but for anyone shooting with fast primes at wide apertures in the wide to short tele FL range the D700 is than what any DX setup can do because the larger sensor area is just what is needed to get a good image at these apertures. What's more the larger VF makes focusing by eye easier and the manual focus throw of the lenses is better matched to the format.</p>

 

<p>"Primes" are not always best as a lot of people think.<br>

Shun, you buy primes basically to shoot at wide apertures, not at f8 as your posting shows. <br>

At that aperture, primes cannot be any different from a zoom. </p>

<p>I'd also be curious to know how our OP uses her photos. How big does she print? How tight does she crop? (Why do we NEVER seem to discuss this with regard to camera selection?)</p>

<p>And what does she actually shoot. All I know so far is that it's not landscapes...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What I shoot: people, street, portraits. Lots of middle focal range stuff, mostly wide open with ambient light. I've been using the 35 and 50 exclusively for several months. So I guess I've answered my own question... the 50 takes the place of the 35, and the 85 could take the place of the 50.</p>

<p>I have not printed larger than 8x10, but only because 6 MP seems to be really pushing it for anything bigger. I would like to have more latitude for cropping.</p>

<p>For the lens choices, I pretty much agree with Ilkka. The manual focus 28 mm primes are better than the AF one. However I see no rush in replacing the 35; you may find that you prefer 28 and you don't necessarily need anything between 28 and 50. I used to shoot with a 24-50-85 setup and I was happy, although I could have traded the 24 for the 28. Some people prefer 105 over 85, again it's a personal choice. The point is that photographically one can go very far with a simple setup such as this.<br>

Fact is that if you don't need zooming, you can live with manual focusing for wide angles and don't mind buying used then just a couple of hundred will buy you the primes that will easily let the capabilities of the D700 shine. There's a heavy premium to be paid for zooms, AF-S and superfast lenses.<br>

I think the sensor cleaning argument is bogus, after 15000 shots with a mostly prime setup I still don't have enough dust on the sensor of my D300 that I'd bother wet wiping it. Furthermore, zooms cannot automatically limit lens changes if things like superfast or macro need to be done. The only two points in buying zooms is to very quickly be able to change the focal length or to have one compact lens to cover a number of focal lengths. If these are not the primary goals, then the available lens selection grows much larger.</p>

<p>I would suggest a combination of standard zoom (28-70/2.8 Nikkor or 24-70/2.8 Nikkor) plus three primes: AF-S 50/1.4G Nikkor for low light situations, AF 20/2.8 Nikkor for wide angle and 180/2.8 Nikkor. The D700 deserves to have a good FX lens on it.</p>

<p>For wide angle, even though you don't want a zoom, I have to say that Nikon's 17-35 is just SWEET on FX, rivaling or exceeding any of the wide angle f2.8 primes in that range. That's one zoom you should really consider.</p>

<p>Then a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.4 and BAM, you have something special.</p>

<p>You've had excellent advice. The big zooms are great but they are also GREAT... as in very large. If you're trying to be discrete, stick with primes.</p>

<p>Quotes I would support:</p>

<p>"<em>Seems like you are making a LOT of compromises on lens quality just to put a ton of money into a camera body.</em> "... do not put any Sigma glass on a D700, you might as well use a D70s and save your money. </p>

<p>"<em>28mm f1.4<br /> 50mm f1.4 (have)<br /> 85mm f1.4</em><br>

<em>Luxury lenses that are nice to have<br /> 14-24 f2.8<br /> 24-70 f2.8 (have)<br /> 105 macro VR</em> "</p>

<p>I absolutely concur (but try the 85 f1.8 instead to save a couple hundred bucks) and would only add an older 35 F2 if 28 is wide beyond your needs. A used 28mm f1.4 (it's out of production) will set you back well over $3000.</p>

<p>In zooms, consider a 35-70 f2.8 AF-D which seems to be in the range you are most often working. A lot smaller that the other f2.8 zooms, it's also under rated and under priced. You can find them for about $500 in good shape... t</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, you buy primes basically to shoot at wide apertures, not at f8 as your posting shows. <br /> At that aperture, primes cannot be any different from a zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Primes are generally faster than zooms. Of that, you're correct. But you're vastly overgeneralizing (to put it nicely) to say that photographers buy primes just to shoot them wide open. Control of DoF and an extra stop or two of speed is nice, but let's not forget about the size difference, weight difference, distortion correction and price difference, to name a few.</p>

<p>At f/8 most lenses should perform about the same. Whether they are fast or slow, zoom or prime. In that sense, you're right. A test at f/8 won't show a darn thing! But it does. The quality between the three is noticeably different (if you can't see it right away, look for color fringing and sharpness). Tests like this are important to remind us, myself included, that a prime does not necessarily outperform a zoom lens.</p>

<p>Natalie,<br>

I currently own a Nikon D200 (upgraded to it froma Nikon D70). I also invested in a medium format digital Phase One with a P20+ back (square format, 16MP).<br>

I have no doubt that a bigger sensor, like larger format film, provides a higher quality image. So I suggest to you to get a camera can handle for your needs and try to get the bigger sensor. I would get the D700 over the D300. <br>

In fact, I am considering a D700, but will likely wait just a bit. I want to see what Nikon has coming and think it is likey before the end of the year there will be another FX camera. I am in no rush at this time as my current cameras are working very well for me.<br>

Let us know what you decide and let us see some the results.<br>

Good Luck.<br>

Mark Sablow</p>

<p>marksablow.com </p>

 

<p>I'd say the 24/2.8 AF-D and 85/1.8 AF-D. If you don't do tons of super wide angle shooting consider adding the Tamron SP 17/3.5. I'd replace the DX 35/1.8 with a 35/2 AF-D (if you're moving exclusively to FX).</p>

<p>I only recently bought a D700. Along with f2.8 zooms, I had an 85/1.4 AIS and a Kiron 105/2.8 macro lens. The only new lens I got is the Nikon 50/1.4 AFS -- right now, this is getting the most use.</p>

<p>My recommendation, as I shoot film on fx nikon bodies and digitalon a D300, is carefully look at the pre AFS era. Look at classic AF-D legends as well as AI and AI-s manual lenses. Here you will find a world of glass that was probably only bettered in some instances in 35mm by selected Leica offerings.<br>

These can be had very cheaply on eBay if you keep a look out for them, as most people now want lenses that auto focus, having swallowed the camera manufacturers mantra. But as you know, there are many instances where auto focus is not a factor. Remember that Nikon has the pro photographic world at its feet for a couple of decades and they produced lenses to cater for it. Here are some very sharp, beautiful manual AI lenses to consider. Read the reviews and choose. I just bought the 180ED for $138. I don't think the seller knew what he had.<br>

85/1.8<br>

105/1.8 & 2.5 (2.5 is a legend but freely available...probably Nikons biggest selling manual portrait lens)<br>

135/2.8<br>

180/2.8 (later ED only)<br>

If you want a great zoom with auto focus that will work well on your D700 for a fraction of the AFS price, look for an 80-200/2.8 AF-D (the later one with separate focus and zoom rings). More portraits and fashion shots have probably been taken with this lens than any other.<br>

With these you will cover the portrait range from full length, half body and face only with glass that has few peers...even today. Today's coatings may be a little better, and AFS is a tad faster than AF-D, but actual lens quality probably isn't. Nikon today are struggling to emulate the quality in AFS today, that they had with their range ten years ago.<br>

With the above you will not see much depreciation and they all have resolution that does justice to the FX sensor.</p>

<p>Chris, I agree with you that exception, a prime ``does not necessarily'' outperform a zoom lens.'' But this is more of an exception than a rule. </p>

<p>Natalie, you state you are, in fact, getting a D700 and will, in fact, buy primes for it. The purpose of your post was, I believe, to get a recommendation as to <em>which</em> prime or primes you should get next.You were doing fine with your question until you threw in the last sentence:<br>

"Any other thoughts/recommendations?"<br>

What an avalanche of irrelevant yada yada that unleashed. I'm surprised no one has urged to switch toothpaste brands.<br>

In response to your question: I'd double the focal length of your 50s and rather than go just up to 85mm jump to the inexpensive yet excellent 105mm f2.5. At the other end, 24mm f2.8 AI or AIS. (unless manual focus is a deal breaker for you)<br>

Enjoy your D700. It's a wonderful camera.</p>

 

<p>Natalie, what you might be missing here is that photography depends not so much on a camera as it does a SYSTEM. The lens, camera, flash, post process software etc. all do their part in a well thought out system. When you start dumping the bulk of your money on just one part of the system at the expense of the rest, your overall result suffers. I bought a refurb D300 for $1040 last fall. I generally do buy used gear whenever possible. That way I get the best stuff for my money. I too am a significant night shooter, and a good portion of my shots are ambient light or matching massive strobes to ambient light. The D300 with f2.8 zooms has performed very well. By using the less expensive D300 body (D90 would also work) I have managed to put together a FAR more capable selection of top quality lenses than you will be able to. And it's still the lens that primarily determines how sharp your photos will be, what you can photo, and how & where. <br>

Kent in SD </p>

<p>Kent, I understand it perfectly well, which is why I didn't ditch my D40 when I outgrew it a year ago. Instead, I bought better lenses and CS3. But I'm at the point where a better camera body is important to me. And in another year, I'll have acquired more lenses and I'll still have a camera that delights me.</p>

<p>Joe, thanks for understanding. I've learned my lesson: never post an ambiguous question on photo.net. The discussion has been interesting, though, and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond.</p>

<p>You'll find that wide manual focus lenses are pretty easy to focus due to their wide depth of field. A used 28 2.0 AI won't cost any more than a new 28 2.8 AF-D and is a much much better lens. Perfect for street photography. Set the aperture to 22, the iso to 800 and the focus at 7 feet and you will always be in focus. That's how guys like Bruce Gilden work.</p>

<p>Congratulations, Natalie. <br>

Agree with the posting regarding halving and doubling your 50mm f/1.8. Your options are delightful in the 20; 24; 28 and 35mm range and again in the 85, 105 and 135mm range. I have the 85 f1/8 and I love this lens; the 135mm f/2 and again love it for portraits. I also hang on to a 100mm Series E that works in a pinch and can be counted on at times in cramped quarters to be just the right length. </p>

<p>Happy hunting. </p>

<p>I'm about to jump to the D700, and I'm also going to be going with primes for the time being.</p>

<p>There seems to be something overlooked by some, and that is that some people just prefer shooting with prime lenses. I think I may be one of those people. I also greatly prefer a full frame over DX. I vastly prefer shooting with my N80 to my D300, and it isn't just because I like the results film produces. I also just plain like the focal lengths more.</p>

<p>Is the D700 "just" a stop better than D300? Possibly. I think it's a little more than that, but more importantly, no matter what, <em>it will always be full frame</em>. In five years, it will still be a full frame camera, just as the Canon 5D is a full frame camera four years after its introduction and still going strong, partly because of that.</p>

<p>Also, that extra stop being mentioned is a lot for some people, and I think the dynamic range in the D700 is just plain better than the D300, and that ISO 1600 on the D700 looks a lot cleaner and more colorful than it does on the D300.</p>

<p>It's just not about pure sharpness or even image quality in an absolute sense. It's also about shooting style and personal preference. For me, that seems to be a full frame camera, whether it's film (cheap cheap, as my N80 ran me just $60 in basically mint condition) or digital (D700, a bit more expensive).</p>

<p>So, I'm selling my new D300 (which I was given as a replacement for my previous one, which was dead) and 17-55 and moving up.</p>

<p>I think that Natalie should post some photography work and then it may become more clear what Natalie really needs, whether it's equipment, technique, composition, post-processing, etc. It's obvious that Nikon gets Natalie's money, but what does Natalie get (or need) in return?</p>