akshun Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Ok, so i have an opportunity to spend some cash. Its a toss up between the Nikon D3s or the Nikon 200mm f2 lens. I currently have a D700 with a series of decent lenses(14-24mm,24-70mm,70-200mm) and an 85mm 1.4d. Im dying to get the D3s for its low light capability,speed and durability, but at the same time ive been wanting the 200mm f2, hmmmmmm. let me know what you would go with in my situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbanks Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I think it depends what you photograph ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>200/f2 !!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnilssen Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I was in a almost similar situation a few months ago, unsure of upgrading from my D300. I landed on a 24-70 and 70-200 combo, and saved quite a few bucks. Who knows what the D400 or D800 will bring?</p> <p>But as Ron S says, what do you photograph and what are your needs apart from "want to have"... ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshun Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Rob, i photograph pretty much everything, mostly weddings and people , pets etc.. i also travel alot so i take alot of scenic pics from other countries. Most weddings i shoot, the hall or church is brutal for light, so its nice to have the ability to shoot with low noise in those conditions and the D700 does very well, but its still no D3s. i also use the MBD-10 grip, speed is good, but again, its no d3s. id like to start doing some kids sports, like soccer and baseball and the D3s has the crop factor setting which will give me some more range with the 70-200mm if needed. But that 200mm f2 sure looks sweet and the reviews on it are stellar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I have the D700 and all the lenses you mention (with the exception that the 200/2 is v. I, not the current II). What do you want to do with the 200/2? It is quite a heavy lens so ... just to remind you about that. I can always feel in my body when I´ve used it. But the results are quite from another world. I wish I used it more often.</p> <p>I have no experience with the D3s but I think an incremental upgrade within the same generation is probably not worthwhile unless you don´t already have a backup body. If you just have one body then you probably should get another one (e.g. the D3s).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_ng Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 What do you mean by crop factor? If you mean the DX mask, all that does is use the middle section of the sensor in DX size and give you a 5mp image, which is what your D700 is also able to do. The 200mm f/2 has really shallow DOF when shot wide open, so it might not be suitable for kids/pet/random moving subjects. So the D3s might be more worthwhile if you need that 1 stop advantage over the D700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>the D3s is a great body, it'll be obsolete in a few months, but who cares? if you want low-light, that's the one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbanks Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I have 2x D3s's which I use for fashion shows, often in poor lighting conditions (not many venues have super lighting like the London Fashion Week tent!), my main lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I suppose this is quite similar to sports photography but I generally can predict where my subjects will be heading! I upgraded from a D3 (same sensor as D700 of course). I find the D3s in combination with Lightroom 3's noise reduction has given me much more flexibility to shoot in poor light and get useable results.</p> <p>Unfortunately my D3s upgrade was at the same time as my Lightroom 3 upgrade so its hard for me to apportion the improvement to one or the other, although revisiting some of my D3 shots in Lightroom 3 has rescued some I had thought were unuseable - funnily enough from a friend's wedding in a badly lit church with no flash (I never normally do weddings). My D3 was damaged though so that was a good excuse to upgrade ;)</p> <p>The 200mm f/2 is a beautiful lens, but I've never used it so I can only go by what I've read in reviews about the difference in results between it and the 70-200 f/2.8. So really you need to weigh up these, along the one-stop advantage of the lens (and how often you will shoot at f/2) against the "at-least-one-stop" advantage of the D3s vs D700, plus the extra "pro" features of the D3s, including the extra size/weight...for me, in my situation, I get more flexibility from the D3s+70-200 than a D700+200, but its down to your priorities. As Ilkka says it is good to have a backup body.</p> <p>Generally of course investment in quality lenses will serve you for many years through several body upgrades, but its nice to be on a good quaillty starting platform around which to build your lens collection. I would consider the D700 and D3 series both good platforms. As Per-Christian mentions, the next body might surpass what the D3s currently gives you, if you are in a position to be able to afford it when it comes out...</p> <p>BTW are you considering the VRI or VRII version of the lens - there is quite a big price difference! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I'd put the money in the bank. I'd wait till I KNEW there was something I needed.</p> <p>If I didn't have to worry about money (wouldn't THAT be nice...) I'd take another trip to Alaska with that money and bring all my camera gear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>Either of them are candidates f<em>or "intensive-initial-use-then-abandoned-because-too-much-big&heavy" </em>kind of gear. Obviously it is based on my own experience, and what I think when someone ask me.</p> <p>If I must choose between them <em>right now</em>, I`d opt for the 200VRII. Whatever the difference between the D700 and D3S is, I bet is not enough to make it worth it to my photography. I`d wait for the D4, or for the D700 successor. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I'd put the money in the bank. I'd wait till I KNEW there was something I needed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Really. Since the choices are totally different items (a lens vs. a body), it seems clear that neither one is necessary. In that case I think it is prudent to save the money until some "must have" item appears.</p> <p>I also agree that the difference between the D700 and D3S is not big enough. Since a D4 is very much expected within this year, at this stage of its production cycle, I wouldn't buy a new D3S unless it is absolutely necessary.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>Get the 300mm 2.8 VR lens. You already have 70-200, so something longer could make a difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>FWIW, I have a D700 (no grip) and a 200 f/2 mk 1. The 200 f/2 will gain you a stop over your 70-200; the D3s is roughly the same relative to the D700 (maybe slightly better). Bear in mind how narrow the depth of field is at f/2 - if you want bokeh, get the 200 f/2; if you just want low light, I'd consider the camera with better ISO performance, since a fast shutter won't help if you can't get everything in the DoF. The D3s would also make all your lenses better - although you could say the 200 f/2 would make your next camera better. The 200mm f/2 is absolutely better in terms of subject isolation and LoCA than the 70-200 (which is why I got one - and I don't have the 70-200) but it's huge, and you really have to want to use it (and subtle it isn't). It is, however, easier to hand-hold than people claim; I'm overweight, so I counterbalance it, but I don't have huge biceps.<br /> <br /> If you really want an upgrade <i>now</i>, I'd lean to the D3s if you're trying to treat these as equivalent options. <i>But</i> - if your 70-200 is a mark 1 (i.e. the corners are fuzzy at 200mm on FX), that would tip me to the big prime. Although Frank's suggestion of a 300mm instead also makes sense.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_k4 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I'd get the 200mm now, and wait to see what's coming up in the D800. If the D7000 is any indication of the advances in DX, it's likely the D800 low light will perform closer to the D3s than the D700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_spooner Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>I have both of these. I shoot a lot of sports. As one poster mentioned, the results from the 200 F2 are absolutely breath taking. Additionally, IMHO, there is quite a difference between the D700/D3 and the D3S. I shoot a lot for local media and much of it is in low light H.S. gyms as well as football fields. If I can not shoot there, then the athletes can not see, it is that simple. I also added the 85 AF-S 1.4 and the results are just unbelievable. Most of the other shooters will use strobes to shoot, while I am getting clean shots at ISO 16000. I have had large front sports page prints from ISO 25,000. As Shun said, I probably would get the glass and wait until the D4 comes out, which will hopefully be this year. I want to add a third body and have resisted another D3S in the hopes to add a D4.<br> Best of luck.<br> Harry</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>This thread makes me wonder what you guys were doing or would have done 5 years ago, when 3200 ISO was about the top limit. And in film days you'd be lucky to get a true 1000 ISO - B&W only, with grain that looked like coarse grit sandpaper! I hate to sound like my old dad, but you really don't know you're born these days.</p> <p>The D700 is a fine camera. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fine lens. So use what you've already got to its best advantage, because always lusting after the next big thing is a distraction that really won't improve your photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>Drool, 200/2 drool.</p> <p>That's all I got for you ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p><em>This thread makes me wonder what you guys were doing or would have done</em></p> <p>A lot less photography when it was dark.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>Shun has the answer - it you don't know what you <strong>need</strong>, hold on to your money.</p> <p>200mm is not very long for an FX camera, practically in the head-shot category. For weddings, it is only good for medium shots from the Sacristy door or rear of the church. IMO, it's not worth the money for an extra stop over a 70-200, especially with the D700/D3/D3s. If you don't have a 70-200/VR, I'd suggest that for a start. If you need a fast, long lens for weddings and fashion, the 300/2.8 VR is about the same price as the 200/2.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyhargraves Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>For all that money you're getting 1 stop of higher iso performance and a more durable body. You could put the battery grip on the d700 and get 8 fps. I vote the lens or wait for the d4. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>All of Nikon's 200mm f2 lenses are exceptional. I had the 200/2 AI. The size, weight, and cost of these lenses make them very purpose specific. If you do not have a determined need for this lens then it may take up a disproportionate amount of your equipment budget.</p> <p>I doubt that the D3S has much to offer over the D700, and that seems to be the consensus above. I recommend waiting for the next wave of full frame cameras coming out especially considering the current cost of the D3S.</p> <p>The Nikon 135mm f2 may be a more appropriate fast telephoto to consider for your requirements. While it may not be up to the standards of the 200/2 it is just as fast, much more handholdable, and vastly less obtrusive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble5 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 <p>If you do not have a Nikon 300 2.8, get THAT first.</p> <p>I think of the Nikon 200 f2 lens as a worthy FILM body lens where the f2 and VR will alow some awesome portraits on slow speed B&W film.</p> <p>I shot all of these with Rose bowl Parade on a <strong>Nikon 300 2.8</strong> AFS Version I, handheld at ASA 200 on a NiKon D300.</p> <p><a href="http://andrenoble.com/Rose%20Bowl%202011%20web/Rose%20Bowl%20Parade%202011/content/index.html">http://andrenoble.com/Rose%20Bowl%202011%20web/Rose%20Bowl%20Parade%202011/content/index.html</a></p> <p>The results from this lens are truly professional. the Nikon 300 f2.8 AFS lens is in a class by itself.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshun Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 Ok guys, lots of great feedback here, very much appreciated too. i guess the D3s is not gonna happen, i am very happy with the D700 and i have the grip which gives it the speed, but its still just not quite up to that level of the D3s , atleast i dont think so, but obviously the differences are very slight and for that amount of money i can get some great glass that will last for a long time. Andre, those images are quite impressive, thanks for the examples, however, from what ive been reading and the samples i have seen taken with the 200mm f2, its basically in a class all by itself. Im thinking at this point, that i may rent the 200mm f2 and the 300mm f2.8 and try them out to see which feels the best. another option for the money would probably be the 200mm-400mm vr. Anyone try that yet?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_smith24 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <p>The D3s will be replaced in the current year and is not a good investment unless you absolutely need the the extra 1 stop or so over the D3, D700. The 200 F/2 is a much better investment and you'll be using it long after the D3s beomes obsolete. Camera bodies are more or less computers these days and their currency value drops rapidly just like computers. The lenses on the other hand will last for decades and longer and hold a lot of their value as long as Nikon doesn't change the F mount.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now