D700 or Nikon 24 1.4

<p>I own a D200 and love it except ISO beyond about 400. Yesterday, I was shooting indoors with my 35 1.8AFS and was getting about 1/20ths @ ISO 400 shooting wide open. That's the only sub-f2.8 lens I own. I'm intrigued by the new Nikon 24 1.4, but it's practically as expensive as a D700 (not quite, but close). I love my D200 and don't have any interest in getting a D700 except for its high ISO capability. So, I'm wondering what are the pros/cons of going with the D700 versus keeping my D200 and getting the 24 1.4. Naturally, this assumes the 24 1.4 turns out to be a splendid performer, which probably everyone expects.<br>

One note: I fully expect to go FX some day, but I felt like I just bought my D200. And the 24 1.4 would provide a nice focal length on either a DX or an FX IMO. But, if the creative doors would swing wide open by going w/ a D700 instead, I would consider it.<br>

thanks</p>

<p>What lens(es) would you use on the D700 were you to get it?</p>

<p>Go the lens then. Most people will tell you this. You will enjoy it now, and it will last a long time. And when you are ready for an FX body it will be great on it too.</p>

<p>That's a <em>lot</em> of money for half a stop, Andrew. You could just spend $400 or so on Sigma's 30/1.4 if you want a slightly faster, slightly wider prime for your D300, and unload it for nearly what you paid for it when you make the many-thousands-of-dollars move to an FX body and related lenses.<br /><br />If you just go straight to the D700, you'll have to buy a lens or two no matter what. If you spend all of that 24/1.4 money now, you'll scarcely be taking advantage of it. You really have to jump all the way off the cliff, or just wait a while, I think.</p>

<p>The move to FX, while definitely worthwhile, is also very expensive. Lenses hold their value much better than do camera bodies. In fact for the product cycle present now it may be a good idea to wait for the new round of FX sensor bodies to come out and see where they go with them, and that will also make the D700 much more affordable as it will be seen to be "obsolete" which of course is ridiculous. For the majority of amateur photographers, the D700 is far and away more camera than they will ever need for many years (even if NAS does take hold).</p>

<p>The 24/1.4 will be more of a specialty lens so that should be considered in the prospective purchase. If you are going to be shooting wide angle a lot it will be a neat lens to have. On DX I suppose it would simulate a 36mm so it would be a good FL to have. Lot of money for that one lens which is OK if you would use it all the time. </p>

<p>Sigma offers a 24mm f/1.8 for under $500. It might be worth looking into.</p>

<p>As much as I love shooting without a flash, it is sometimes necessary.</p>

<p>Spend under $120 and purchase a Nikon SB-400 Speedlight. It's as small as your 35mm f/1.8 and has a small bounce head. This can help solve your "shooting indoors" issues without forking over a ton of cash. </p>

<p>Gah! Not the SB-400! At least use the 600. Along with the reduced power, the 400 can't be used as a CLS slave (a very powerful feature native to the D200 body) and can't bounce from the ceiling when you're shooting in portrait orientation. Andrew doesn't sound unwilling to put reasonable money into things, but does care how things look... and off-camera flash is a huge boon in that regard. I agree, Richard, that sometimes it's necessary - but when that moment comes, I'd feel truly cramped by the SB-400's significant limitations.<br /><br />Certainly, well-used off-camera or cleverly bounced flash can make far more of a difference than a slightly (barely!) faster lens.</p>

<p>I have a D200 and when I lack enough light for ISO 400 I will put it on a tripod or use a flash. I sometimes just don't take a picture and I have found it is not a terminal condition. </p>

<p><br /> A 24 is a 36 on DX. It certainly seems like an awful lot of money, as Matt said, unless you'll use it as your main lens, all the time. Too many eggs in only one basket. The D700, if you're ready, will open up an entirely new world of photography. I moved to a D700 from a D200 just over a year ago and have not looked back. Now I want a D3x, but will wait a while to see what Nikon has up its sleeve in the next 6-9 months.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Andrew, the 24/1.4 is a bit of a special use, high-end, very expensive lens...at least it better deliver high-end performance. It's also somewhat telling to read that you'd find it acceptable on either DX or FX format as most would consider the angle of view to be vastly different and either meeting a specific requirement or being way off the mark.</p>

<p>I will venture to say that if you needed that lens you would recognize the need straight away and not feel the need to consult the gallery. You will be far better served by shooting a newer body that offers better high ISO performance which you can shoot with a variety of lenses. Forum members, as you've noticed, are very adept at spending other's money ;)</p>

<p>As mentioned, a D700 is just the tip of the FX cost iceberg. I've been finding that out first-hand since last June. Why not sell the D200 and get a D90 body instead? The IQ easily beats a D200, and should get you to at least ISO 1600. If there are features of the D200 you just can't live without, maybe you could find a way to wrangle a D300/300s. In any case, I'd wait a week for the PMA show...maybe Nikon has something else up their sleeve.</p>

<p>$2k for a lens to gain 2 stops (vs f/2.8) seems like diminished returns. OTOH, having a 36mm equivalent that can go to f/1.4 could be fun - 35mm was my favorite 'urban street' lens w/35mm film. Even if the IQ isn't earth-shattering with FX, DX will likely crop out any flaws at the corners and edges. History shows us that lens ought to at least hold its value.</p>

<p>Yep, the D700 does make a change in your life. I did have the D200 and in the end hated it for even iso 800 being sometimes useless. I now have the D700 and I'm even happy with the outcome of iso 3200 shots.<br>

Yes, save the money you wanted to spend on a lens and go for the body. That lens is overpriced anyhow as it is. Nice to have 1.4 at 24mm, but at what cost? Try the Sigmas..</p>

<p>I thought the D700 would make a change in my life, but I was wrong. There are so many things about the D700 that could be better. Viewfinder now 100% is the biggie for me. I expect that in a pro camera. Also image sharpness is a little poor, better on the D300, which also has a better viewfinder. Sure high ISO is great on the D700, but unless you need that or a super-wide lens like the Nikon 14-24, the D700 isn't all that great. I'd buy the lens.</p>

<p>I would go with the d700. The viewfinder and depth of field alone make it worth it. Rent one for a weekend before you decide.</p>

<p>sounds like you dont have the glass to go FX just yet. also, i'm not sure $200+ for the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is worth it. so my answer would be, neither. get a d90 as has been suggested with a sigma 30/1.4 or a used/refurb d300.</p>

<p>I would go with a flash or the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or a D300. The 24mm f1.4 is pretty special with a special price for special shots. I went from a D200 which was great except ISO above 400. Now I have a D700 which meets more than my needs but I plan the keep this body a long time. I did change many lenses even though I had mostly FX type lenses when using the D200.</p>

So many choices.... I was planning to get a D90 or D300 a few months ago, but I knew that I also wanted a fast-ish

24mm-equivalent lens. When I looked at the choices for 16mm, I decided to get a D700 to use with a cheap tiny 24mm

f/2.4 lens. The combination has turned out to be delightful.

<p>Thanks everyone for the thoughtful, and highly varied, responses. To clarify my post, my interest in these two options (D700/24 1.4) is based on a desire to focus on low-light photography sans flash or tripod (i.e. street/urban/interior, etc). Those tools have their place, but not in what I have in mind right now. <br>

Peter K: What lens(es) would you use on the D700 were you to get it? A: at 35mm, the old Nikon 28-70 3.3-4.6.<br>

Lily W: It's also somewhat telling to read that you'd find it acceptable on either DX or FX format as most would consider the angle of view to be vastly different and either meeting a specific requirement or being way off the mark. <br>

Very true, 35mm equivalent (DX) versus 24mm (FX) is a big difference, but as a tool for low light photography they both have all kinds of potential.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew, the 35 1.8 and 24 1.4 are two fairly different lenses. The fact that the 24 is more of a wide angle lens (obviously when using it in FX, it would be far wider than the 35 on DX: as it would be normal vs. wide) and it's a top of the line, brand new FX lens make it very expensive. The 24 should be a excellent lens, but using it on a D200 wouldn't be the most cost effective thing to do, and you won't be getting the most out of it (good image quality made to cover the entire FX frame). </p>

<p>It could be a good idea for you to get a D90, or a D300/D300s if you need the pro-grade build quality and controls. The D700 is a good choice too, as it would be quite a step up from the D200. But that will only be a feasible solution when you got the lenses worked out; and you got the budget for it. </p>

<p>I know this isn't directly relevant to the question at hand, but I can't keep quiet. It bothers me when people say the move to a D700 requires several thousands of dollars in lens investments. Not true. I use several AI-S primes with my D700, all of which I got used. The results are fantastic. In fact, I don't want anything newer, because I take them backpacking and I wouldn't want to give up the uniform 52mm filter ring, depth of field markings and small size and weight.</p>

<p>What people should say is this: <em>depending on what you shoot</em>, the D700 <em>may</em> require several thousand dollars in lens investments.</p>

<p>There can be some real problems using the old film era lenses on a digital camera. For me, they just didn't work. Briefly, I had problems with CA, flare, and the color just wasn't that vibrant. I won't consider using them on a D700, for my purposes. OP hasn't given us much to go on, but generally speaking could get 2 to 2.5 more stops from a D700 and f2.8 lenses than what D200 gives. A used D300 can shoot at ISO 800 well and ISO 1600 reasonably well. That might be the best compromise, along with a Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Sigma 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To clarify my post, my interest in these two options (D700/24 1.4) is based on a desire to focus on low-light photography sans flash or tripod (i.e. street/urban/interior, etc).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given this requirement might I suggest the new 16-35 f/4 with VR?</p>

<p>D700 is way much heavier than D200. if that won't scare you then go for it. it would works perfectly even with regular primes. low light shooting capapility scales up to 6400 without loss in IQ.</p>

<p>While the 24mm/1.4 may be a fantastic lens, and indeed investment in lenses makes more sense than investment in cameras, there is a slight problem with your approach. The 24mm lens will become a 36mm one on your D200. So what you are looking at is a relatively very expensive 35mm lens. And the gain, compared to your 35mm/1.8 lens is only what? 1/2 stop? </p>

<p>On the other hand if you do get a D700 (I have it and I love it), you will need to invest in FX lenses, and believe me they are way more expensive than the DX ones. When I moved over to the FX side of things (just because I didn't want to have two lens sets, on for DX the other one for film cameras), I got myself some lenses which I consider good for my photography type, but would make most pros stare with disbelief. I currently own and use the following lenses with the D700:</p>

<p>- Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D<br>

- Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 AF-D<br>

- Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S</p>

<p>The reason behind the two first lenses (vs the newer 17-35mm or 24-70mm, although I would like to find an 28-70mm/2.8) is because I also use them with my Nikon F2A (and the F5), on which the aperture ring is necessary. I also own several prime Nikkors 16mm/3.5, 24mm/2.8, 28mm/2.8, 35mm/2, 50mm/1.4 (in AF and AI versions etc) which are of course usable on all my cameras. The 35mm and the 50mm ones are the ones I use in low light, but with the D700 low light shooting is an entirely different story.<br>

So, by smartly choosing your lenses, you can avoid spending a fortune for the latest Nikon f/2.8 extra-expensive ones and still get excellent pictures. It all depends on your requirements.</p>

<p> </p>