D700 all-prime plan

<p>I'm about to embark on a heck of an upgrade: D40 to D700. I plan to hang on to the following lenses: 50mm 1.8, Sigma 50mm 1.4, and 35mm 1.8 (by all accounts, it's fine on FX, albeit with some vignetting). What should my next prime be? I don't do a lot of landscape photography, so wide angle isn't a huge priority. I'm thinking 28 2.8 and 85 1.8. Any other thoughts/recommendations?</p>

<p>We can't know your focal length preferences, so it's difficult to say. Look at your favorite photos with your D40 and see what focal lengths you used, and then multiply by 1.5 to get the FX equivalent. If the results are not covered by your 35 and 50s, then you'll know what you need.</p>

<p>I don't believe the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX lens will cover the FX frame. You'd be better off with a second hand Nikon 35mm f2 AIS or AI lens. </p>

<p>If I might inquire, why duplicate the 50mm lenses?</p>

<p>Have a reason to get a D700 and have a need to purchase a focal length would be my recommendation.</p>

<p>35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX on FX (D700).</p><div></div>

<p>Jim, the Sigma is the better lens, but it's built like a tank. The 50 1.8 is small and light, so I'll keep it for travel and walk-around.</p>

<p>Shun, wide open at closer focusing distances, the vignetting is minimal:<br /><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/749669">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/749669</a></p>

<p>This lens is extremely sharp, which is why I plan to continue to use it on FX. The vignetting can be fixed with some judicious post processing and/or cropping.</p>

<p>If you insist on using prime lenses only, your next investment should be a good sensor-cleaning kit. You sensor is going to gather a lot of dust with all of those lens switches.</p>

<p>P.S. The automatic dust-off feature on the D700 doesn't work as well as you might expect. You're going to have to clean that puppy regularly.</p>

 

<p>With a D700, best invest in a 24-70 f2.8EG, Natalie. It'll be commensurate with the move to FX.</p>

<p>Also, pls have a look at this thread for a similar question I posted.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ToxG">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ToxG</a></p>

<p>Hi Natalie,<br>

If you are really interested in landscape photography then some prime Nikon 24mm 2.8 ( or even some 20mm) will be my recommendation.<br>

Some 28mm is OK but it is not wide enough to justify its purchase against 35mm 1.8 that you already own.<br>

On other (Telephoto) side, 85mm 1.8 is fine lens for portraits but it will prove to wide in to many occasions outside and I can hardly justify it regrading those two 50's that you have. My recommendation will be some good 105mm or even (unjustly neglected by many) 135mm lens.<br>

My recommendations are based on more then 20years of not disrupted experience with Laica 135 aka FX Full frame 35mm format cameras, ( a part of that time is more then 18 years of my experience with Nikon's film cameras and lenses)</p>

<p>I don't think it's a good idea to use the 35 DX on FX; the vignetting limits the apertures and distances you can use too much to make it practical. The 35/2D AF doesn't cost much and should be much better.</p>

<p>I can recommend 28mm Ai-S (all versions; f/3.5, f/2.8, and f/2), 50/1.8(D) (great), 85/1.8(D), 105/2.8G AF-S, 180/2.8D AF as economical primes with very high quality for FX use. If you need wider than 28mm then the 24 PC-E and the f/2.8 zooms would be best. I would not get the 28mm autofocus (D or not); the manual focus versions are better.</p>

<p>Did anybody ask why you are avoiding zooms? A standard zoom is great to have, I can't figure out why you wouldn't want one. What exactly DO you shoot that you need only primes.</p>

<p>P.S. I won't bet on Sigma if I am you, even if they ware 'EX' mark. Nikon 50mm f 1.8 AF is one of the sharpest Nikon lenses ever made, although it is really cheap one. On D700 full format camera famous by it's low light capabilities that 1/2 stop will not mater so much after all.</p>

 

<p>I shoot mostly prime lenses on my D300 so I understand what you are looking for. With out knowing what you want to shoot it is hard to give you any ideas.<br>

I have had my D300 for about 18 months now and have yet to have to clean the filter. I have over 30K exposures on the camera I photograph equestrian events to make my living. Dusty is the norm. I find the dust off feature to work very well.<br>

Zooms are nice but you can not find anything faster then f/2.8 and some times that is not fast enough or the DOF may be to much for the look that you want.<br>

If you like shallow DOF look around for a 105 f/1.8 AI-S.</p>

<p>I also rarely never need to clean the filter (maybe 3 times per year) and I swap lenses all the time.</p>

<p>i picked up a 28/3.5 AI from ebay pretty cheap and i'm pretty happy with that. there are better, but i've got the performance i need for around 65$ shipped. i've heard some good things about the 105 AIS and 85/2, both of which should save you about a grand total over their AF counterparts. the nifty fifty is on my 700 often and i'm expecting my third lens in any time now:</p>

<p>50/1.8<br>

28/3.5<br>

85/1.4 (en route)</p>

<p>that's my kit. i know the prime allure that you have; i have it to. happy shooting. </p>

<p>Thanks to all for the good advice. Avoiding zooms has been both an aesthetic and financial decision. I do a lot of low-light, shallow DOF shooting, and the zooms I can afford are just too slow.</p>

<p>I think I'll wait a while to see what focal lengths I really need, and perhaps save up for an 85 1.4 (especially if Nikon releases a new one this year or next) and the 105 macro.</p>

<p>Seems like you are making a LOT of compromises on lens quality just to put a ton of money into a camera body. My own strategy has been to buy the very best lenses available, and with money left over I buy a camera. I'm a night shooter, and this has been successful for me.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>If your overall budget is around $3000 to $4000, I don't think it is a very good idea to spend 60 to 70% of that on the camera body alone. The D700 certainly has excellent low-light capabilities, but it is merely a stop or so over the D300, D90 and D5000. All of those bodies will seriously drop in value in the next 2, 3 years.</p>

<p>The D300 is obviously an excellent camera, but if you don't need top-of-the-line AF and metering with AI/AI-S lenses, the D90 is very good also. Get some good lenses to put in front of any one of them and you'll be all set. However, other than the 35mm/f1.8 DX and 50mm/f1.4, 1.8, expect any f1.4 prime to be expensive. If Nikon ever (re)introduces any 24mm/f1.4, 28mm/f1.4 or 85mm/f1.4 AF-S, expect a 4-digit price tag.</p>

<p>Here is a pixel-level crop from a DX image similar to the one I showed above, but the camera body was a D300 so that only the DX area was captured. Both the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX and the old 35mm/f1.8 AI-S show serious chromatic aberration (CA). See the red "spilling" out from the edge of the stop sign and green fringing on the tree trunk. However, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX essentially shows no CA (it is also the most expensive lens among the three). Everything was captured at f8 on the D300 body at ISO 200.</p>

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

<p>I noticed that the fellow on the Fred Miranda site who brags about the 35/1.8 DX being an FX lens later qualified his claim to apply only to closeups. So it's an FX lens in the same way my 180/2.8 non-AI Nikkor is "fully compatible" with my D2H ... as long as I use the M2 extension tube and don't need infinity focus, sure, it's "fully compatible".</p>

<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>

<p>Natalie, sell your 35mm 1.8 DX because with it you will be using only about 5 megapixels of D700. <br />If wide-angle photography is not your huge priority, then all you need are just two primes -50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2 DC. <br />From my experience I can tell you, don't waste money on mid-range zoom 24-70mm f2.8. If you are not lazy, 50mm is a much better choice. It is faster and cheaper. And you already have one - Sigma.</p>

<p>For landscape work on FF, check out the Nikon 20 f/2.8D<br /> <br /> I don't own one, but I've rented one and used it on my F100. Its plenty wide enough for FF, and a great little lens for walk around because you can easily shoot hand-held at 1/15th with it. You should be able to pick one up for $400-500.<br /> <br /> You may also consider a 105 f/2.5 AiS. It's a pretty good all around lens if you don't mind manual focus, especially when you want to get a little compression in a shot for landscape work or if you want to do any portraits. They can be had for under $200. I'm getting one soon to go w/ my FM3A.<br /> <br /> For a good look at different primes, I would check out Bjorne's website. He seems to have tested almost every Nikon lens out there, I always check his reviews before making a purchase. <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_blank">http://www.naturfotograf.com</a></p>