Decision to make - D700 + 24-70/2.8 or wait for new FX?

<p>This falls in the category of 'have to make a decision in next 24hrs' as its a live discussion that I'm having.</p>

<p>Essentially I'm being offered a very lightly used D700<strong> and </strong>24-70/2.8 (I've played around for a couple of hours with the kit as its someone I know, and its at what KEH would call 'LN' including box, accessories, and no wear) for the same kind of money I had banked away for the D700's replacement due - I presume - in the next 3-6 months.</p>

<p>On the one hand I am happy to keep waiting as I am still using my D80 and my 6 primes, and the D700's replacement when it comes is likely to be quite the camera. Plus I bought my D80 quite late in its model life and I know what its like to make a purchase and then have your camera 'superceded' just a few of months later (though it hasn't stopped me having fun and learning on my D80).</p>

<p>On the other, if I buy now, I know I get a huge step up in camera body and also a very respected zoom lens... plus as those who are regulars here will know, I'd finally be able to action my instinct to get rid of my 24/2.8D and - perhaps - my 35/2D.</p>

<p>I'd be left with D700, 24-70/2.8, 35/2D (maybe), 50/1.4D, 85/1.4D, 135/2DC, 180/2.8D which would be a pretty good FX kit.</p>

<p>So what are your thoughts? For the same money? An essentially new D700 + 24-70/2.8 but knowing the D700 will not be 'current' for much longer? Or sit on what I have and wait for the new model (and use it in the first instance with my current 24/2.8D and 35/2D for the wider stuff)?</p>

<p>I don`t know about your current work and your needs... the only way I can respond is <em>if I were you...</em> I`d wait.<br /> Anyway, the D700 with 12Mp and its image quality doesn`t need to be replaced if the aim is to get "normal" family prints and much more; a replacement will be welcomed if it comes with added features like video, cards, improved performance, etc. but it doesn`t mean it will expire the usefulness of the D700.<br /> The 24-70 is a huge lens. I`d now prefer to have a 16-35/2.8, 35, 50 and 85/105VR (or even a 70-200!) setup. Again, it`s my <em>current</em> opinion (I may change tomorrow).<br /> If you think the replacement will arrive in the next year, wait. If you decide to buy a D700 now, maybe you`ll be tempted to post in a few months a topic like... "S<em>hould I trade my D700 for the new DXXX?... "</em>. If you wait you`ll have then a camera from the first day of its cycle and you`ll not get tempted to change it for years. And if you think it comes too expensive, or if you don`t like the upgrade, there will be loads of D700 in the second hand market at a much lower price, I guess.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is a great lens; I think your proposed setup sounds very fine. I have most of those lenses and I think you will be pleased with what the D700 can do with them. I would sell the 24 but keep the 35mm f/2D for now until Nikon comes up with new compact wide angle primes (hopefully after they finish the f/1.4 line). I find the 35/2D handy in situations where I need an autofocus wide angle and wish to avoid pointing a huge lens at people in close range.</p>

<p><em>16-35/2.8</em></p>

<p>Jose, which brand of lens are you talking about?</p>

<p>The D700 is an excellent body and upgrade from the D80. The D700 may not have all the bells and whistles that its replacement will have, but it will always deliver excellent performance, IQ and value. If you look at the D7000, the replacement will likely have all of its features plus high ISO performance of the D3S. If these are not relevant to your shooting style, don't wait. Sounds like you are getting a good deal. <br /><br /></p>

<p><em>" late in its model life"</em> FWIW, I very recently purchased a D50 which is quite late in its model life. Like most other Nikon DSLR bodies, it works great. </p>

<p>Why are people so anxious to write off the D700 so soon ? There's always something new over the horizon.. Get the D700 with the 24-70 now. Going from the D80 to the D700 its like going from a bicycle to a Rolls Royce. EVEN IF... there's a replacement, you probably won't need all the extra stuff above and beyond a 'normal' D700, and the 24-70 lens. Will you really need video ?... Will you need really 24MP, in which case don't expect it to be cheap. I'd recon on twice the price of the current D700. Do your self a favour and get the D700 + lens now, before you lose that also.</p>

<p>Oooops, I wanted to mean that this was my <em>ideal</em> setup (<em>"I`d now prefer to have a 16-35/2.8, 35, 50...</em> ...") I have included a lens that doesn`t exist! (I should have said 17-35/2.8).<br /> BTW, I suspect that sooner or later the current 17-35/2.8 will be replaced with a "G" type version ("N" coatings, 16?-35, etc.).</p>

<p>My D700 is almost 24 months old. It does every thing I need (12x18 prints are nice and sharp)except it is heavier than I would prefer so I am not inclined to carry it more than a few miles when I go into the woods. The size and weight of the 24-70mm keeps me away from it. I am a bit interested in how the new 24-120mm f4 preforms but once again it is large and heavy. I will look closely at the Fujifilm x100 when it is available for longer trips into the woods. New bodies will always be coming out. At some point the gain will not be worth much to me. If you don't require FX then the D7000 looks to be a great body at 22 ounces, less than 2 pounds with a small prime. It is important to me at times to have a camera and lense that I will carry around than FX + zoom. If the deal is good enough and you need the combination go for it.</p>

<p><em>BTW, I suspect that sooner or later the current 17-35/2.8 will be replaced with a "G" type version ("N" coatings, 16?-35, etc.).</em></p>

<p>I suspect this will not happen in many years as the current f/2.8 zoom lineup consists of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. If there is to be a new 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, why not then a 35-105/2.8, 50-135/2.8, and 120-300/2.8 also? How many f/2.8 zooms are necessary? ;-) I read that almost 100000 14-24's have been sold; this seems like an overwhelming vote in favor of it over the 17-35 (which is no longer available new in many countries due to the 14-24's popularity). For me, the 16-35 or 17-35 would be a more useful range than the 14-24 but then 24-70 is still more useful and the overlap between 17-35 and 24-70 is considerable... by avoiding the overlap Nikon has been able to cover a larger zoom range while maintaining (or improving) on the image quality (no overlap => narrower zoom ranges on individual lenses => better image quality). I can see the motivation of the 16-35/2.8 personally but by comparing the image quality of the 16-35/4 and 14-24/2.8 there was only one conclusion that could be made in the choice between the currently available lenses.</p>

<p>Life's too short to be waiting around for the next Great Camera to be released. If the price is right and it's what fits your needs <em>right now</em> then go for it. The D700 takes practically every lens ever made in Nikon F fitting, which its succesor might not. So lightweight and excellent quality MF lenses can be used and bought for a fraction of the cost of the latest bulky AF zooms, thus offsetting any "loss" you might feel you've taken when the D800 or whatever finally comes along.</p>

<p>I can pocket 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm MF lenses in about the same space and weight as the AF Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 - AND get an extra stop of aperture from them all.</p>

<p>I'd buy it unless you have a need for video in a DSLR or higher ISO than the D700. The D700 is the first DSLR I have owned that I have not wanted to trade up from. (Does that make sense?) The D700/24-70 combo is ideal, IMHO. With your lens line up, you'll be happy, I have no doubt.</p>

<p>

<p>First of all, I do not need a current body; I need a body that will meet my photographic needs.<br>

　<br>

I have a prime lens kit similar to yours. I also have a zoom lens kit that covers the same focal lengths as my prime lenses. In my case, the two kits complement each other. One kit does not replace the other. Therefore the 24-70mm lens would not affect my prime lenses; however, it would replace my 20-35mm f/2.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lenses.<br>

　<br>

I know the D700 meets my needs.<br>

　<br>

I know the 24-70mm lens meets my needs.<br>

　<br>

I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will retain the features that I need.<br>

　<br>

I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will have the added features that I need.<br>

　<br>

I do not know if the replacement to the D700 will be reasonably priced.<br>

　<br>

Therefore, if I were in your situation, it would primarily depend on the asking price for the D700 body and the Nikon 24-70mm lens. If the price for this cash transaction has been reduced to the point were I absolutely cannot refuse it, I would take it.<br>

　<br>

If you pass on the deal, please send the seller to me. I have been waiting for the price of the FX bodies to drop to a reasonable price so I can get one.</p>

<br>

.</p>

<p>It would depend. If camera was below $1,700 I'd probably do it. If over $1,900, no way I'd do it. Myself, I'm very happy with the lenses I currently have (modern Nikonf2.8 zooms) and am simply waiting for the replacement for D300s. It should match current D700 and I'll save several thousand dollars to be better used than on a camera body that quickly depreciates. One thing I've found over the past 25 years is that a change in camera bodies seems to have the LEAST effect on my photography. Just because the camera changes has rarely meant my photos got better.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>get it - you won't be disappointed. I'd keep the 24-70 and lose the 35/2 (get the new 35/1.4.....). The 24-70 stays on my d700 the vast majority of the time (only usually being changed to a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 for portaits). If you decide to sell the 24-70, I would strongly recommend the MB-D10. The AF-ON function of the d700 will be worth a big chunk of the upgrade, as will the shooting banks. You might need to consider a bigger bag - something like a lowepro 300w!</p>

<p>andyc</p>

<p>Ilkka, I`m sure you know the usefulness of the 17-35 over the 14-24... I bet Nikon knows it, too.<br /> In the same way the 24-70 is the wedding lens, I`d say the 16/17-35 is the one for journalists. We can see them working on most press rooms, even on outdoor press conferences. If Nikon doesn`t work on it as a primary lens, I sincerely think it`s a mistake. Funny, I know nothing about Canon gear but I can recognize their 16-35/2.8 easily by its contour and typical hood. It is on almost all press events.</p>

<p>I can think that they decided to update/upgrade the old 14AFD on the 14-24, catching at the same time that long awaiting desperate users decided to renew their whole lens line (that for could have prefered to buy something like a 16-35/2.8G first!).</p>

<p>I also suspect this will not happen in a time, given that the current one is still in good fit and they still have other lenses to update.<br /> I can imagine that with their usual product-release policy, Nikon will drop every lens very extended on time. It seems to me that they like to arrive late to the lunch, "forcing" hungry users to eat their "starters"; after that, there will be a lapse that will assure to finish every breadcrumb over the table before the main course is served to the still voracious devotees.</p>

<p>It is a personal interpretation, but my 14-24 don`t receive much more use that a 14AFD... usefulness-wise I consider it a delicate, exotic 14mm prime with "<em>extended capabilities</em>". In most ocassions this lens obliges the use of a 24-70, while the 17-35 don`t.<br /> That 24 to 35 overlap let the use of a two lens bag (17-35 + 70-200) vs the "prudish choice" with the <em>full holy setup</em> inside (No pun intended!). :)<br /> Don`t ask me why but I suspect you agree with me...</p>

<p>BM,<br>

If I'd be in your shoes, I think I would... go for a new D700, without the lens. I hate the idea of a near 1 kilo "normal" lens and rather use primes. Admittedly, the 24mm is a bit an issue, since the 24 f/1.4 is a bit expensive..<br>

But, more on topic, the D700 would be totally OK for me, and it does not leave me with a lot to be desired (no great need for an extra stop sensitivity, not interested in video, and no need for much more megapixels). But, that's me.</p>

<p>What would the new Nikon bring that you need? I mean, the typical improvements to be expected: higher resolution, better high ISO, maybe better AF, video, dual card slots, maybe higher framerate. If that list contains nothing you need, I'd rather enjoy as soon as I can.</p>

<p>Kent/others - we're talking about US$2690 (converting from euros) for <strong>both</strong> camera and lens, both near-new. As I said, its very competitive with where the D700 by itself started, and where I imagine the price point for the next FX model will be.</p>

<p>Andy - have done research quickly on these features. Am I right in thinking AF-ON is essentially a lock-recompose tool, to separate exposure and focus locking that usually happens with the shutter? And I imagine banks are essentially an ability to store settings for specific conditions? (which would be awesome!)</p>

<p>Two thoughts: the 'new' D700 will almost certainly have a 24mp sensor; it will be the same size as the current one. Therefore the pixels will ahve to be much smaller. You should research exactly what this means in terms of IQ and low light etc.<br>

Second: it will likely be a rough match to the Canon 5d MkII so rent or borrow one of those for a week and go nuts and see what you think, versus the D700. Then you'll have some empirical basis to decide.<br>

For 90 percent of us an affordable (by whatever lights each of us has) D700 and 24-70/2.8 AF Nikkor is a dream set up worthy of any professional but the most brutally active. It won't cease being so for a loooong time. But it sounds like, for you, the process of reading about the delectable new item whenever it comes out is going to be actually painful if you haven't waited. So you have to decide how much that moment and its satisfaction mean to you versus a superb camera that does everything except fulfill that particular (and immeasurable) need......</p>

<p>i'd get it now then sell it later on ebay if u wish to upgrade if a new FX is launched that is actually is compelling enough to upgrade for the price (which it might not be)</p>

<p>Vince - you know me too well and you haven't met me yet :-) My only counterpoint, and it's a strong one, is that I'm still shooting a D80 and have been sitting back for D90, D300, D300s, and D700 (so-far). And gathering lenses in the meantime - a few new and also waiting for the couple of 'right ones' to pop up second hand. So I've actually shown patience that is not normally a strong suit for me!</p>

<p>And I guess this is one of the intangible parts of the dilemma. Having waited now a year or so, when I could have bought the D700 then, is it the right thing to do to get one now on the eve of its being replaced? On the other hand, people say that glass is the real long-term investment and this may be a great opportunity to get that pro zoom as well as the upgrade to FX body I've been aiming at.</p>

<p>Bernard, not that you are required to do so, but you have not explained why you need a D700. If you have no particular need for FX, perhaps the D7000 (7K) would be a better camera for you. I bought the D700 for two main reasons: (1) high ISO capability and (2) wide angle usage, such as the 24mm PC-E has no DX equivalent.</p>

<p>As I pointed out elsewhere, the D3's high ISO capability was amazing back in 2007, and the D700 was built on the same electronics in 2008. However, that has already been superseded by the D3S and today, perhaps a DX body can achieve that level of high ISO results at a much lower price.</p>

<p>The thing is that US$2690 seems to be an incredible deal for a D700 + 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. The lens alone is $1700 new today. That package appears to be in the "too good to be true" category. I hope you know the seller and can verify that there is no catch for that deal.</p>

<p>$2690 is a bargain for the zoom and d700...</p>

<p>Shun - taking your post in reverse...</p>

<p>Yes I know the seller. I've already played with the gear for ~90 mins and have been told its ok for me to take it for longer yet before committing to the deal. I also know the seller's motivation and circumstances.</p>

<p>FX? A little harder if I am brutally honest with myself. And yes I did stop and think hard upon the D7000 announcement (eg whether to get D7000 and 16/17-35 for the wide end, and stick with my other primes).</p>

<p>Primary reasons for going up from the D80 are ISO performance, better metering, more 'pro-like' controls and ergonomics (not insignificant, and I love just the way a D700 works in my hands and how much more accessible various things are). But those are features, as you point out, that I could also get from the best DX bodies.</p>

<p>So in a sense you are right in questioning my rationality in being FX-focused. I've held off interim camera bodies and focused on building a set of good FX primes. But I probably don't need FX in the strictest sense of the word, despite it being a 'step' or a 'goal' that I've used to build towards gear-wise.</p>

<p>Slowly the enthusiast market, as we who are not professionals are called, has come to accept the DX sensor as adequate and certainly, optically, sensor-wise, it is; but I believe anyone who is truly interested in 35mm photography from before 2003 will always have full frame as a point of reference and as a goal in terms of gear. When you say 24mm lens, to me, I have a distinct vision of what that means photographically; same with 35mm lens. The 24 "as" a 35 is neither. It's something else altogether and what that is, photographically speaking, will take a very long time to sink in to the older brain. (Same goes, by the way, when people say in film terms that a 35 is the same as a 50 if you just step 3 or 4 strides closer to the subject; yes, you should step up 3-4 strides if the picture demands it but it ain't the same. It's like wind-chill, everyone believes in it but it makes no sense: if 23 degrees F 'feels like" 12, what does 12 "feel like"? Invariably, for drama's sake, we love to say it feels like -3. But then, when it's -3, what does that feel like? Etc.)<br>

IN OTHER WORDS: FX or bust. I just used my savings which should have gone for other things to buy a used D300. Compared to my loyal and really quite admirable (though forever dirty-sensored) D40x, it is amazing; I've CPU-ified all my MF primes and they meteer! Imagine that. I'm happy as a pig in the loam. But it ain't full frame and it never will be and that's that.</p>

<p>Did not read all the responses but:<br>

- when I went from D80 to D300, it was Ok, not spectacular<br>

- when I went from D300 to D700, and from 35-70 to 24-70, they pretty much blew me away.</p>

<p>And you'll love you 85mm f1.4 even more :)</p>

<p>While I like primes, I mostly shoot them on film, and the 24-70 is what I use most on the D700. You'll have the 24-70 for a long time and you can always sell the D700 for not much of a loss and upgrade later. I do not think you'll regret the decision if you go for it.</p>

<p>My 2 cents...</p>

<p>You know the seller and reason's. You know the camera condition. You need better ISO preformance. The price is very good. I would go for it. It will be a good body until it is worn out.</p>