More FX lenses?

<p>I've been a D80, then D200, now D300 owner and really want to make the switch to the D3S (the low light ability really plays into what I find myself shooting more often than not). However, I am so frustrated with the choices of non-dx lenses! The 24-70 2.8 is nice, but come on. How about some more variety? Clearly I'll be getting rid of my very versatile 18-200, which is okay. I have the 70-200 2.8 and love it. However, I'd like a 24-120 - something a little more of an all purpose lens.<br>

Is there any reason why Nikon does this? Do you think now that FX is becoming more recognized for its enhanced capabilities that Nikon will begin to release some additional lenses?<br>

I'm troubled to spend $5k on a new body, plus the $600 in the lost 18-200 and the added cost of 1k+ for a 24-70 (or something like it). Ugh.<br>

Anyone has some opinions that may help me make this frustrating decision? I shoot a great deal of landscape, portraits and candids of people and am always finding myself shooting in low light where I can't use a flash or tripod. Truthfully, the D300 sucks in low light - no way around it. Even when I shoot with my 50mm 1.8, I'm hard pressed to get a great candid inside shot with ambient lighting above 250.<br>

When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range, but where do you go with FX? Carry around two lenses - a 24-70 and a 70-200 and swap them quickly? Hard to do without missing shots.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Sure the D700/D3-ish bodies are nice in low light. But the D300 doesn't exactly "suck" by comparison. If you're using the 18-200, I can see why you might feel that way, since the slow aperture is robbing you of huge amounts of potential light. <br /><br />I think you'd be better off with the D700 (at a fraction of the cost of the D3s), and yes ... a couple or three lenses. In practical terms, you should be able to know which of two zooms or a prime you're likely to need as you walk into a people-shooting situation. If you're you're really shooting <em>furiously</em> at a break-neck pace, you're certainly not going for inconspicuous... so why not just get a second D700 (you're still ahead of the game, financially, compared to a D3 and then you'd have a backup body) - and just keep two lenses mounted? That's what the pros do.<br /><br />As for anything FX-fiendly that even approaches the 18-200's focal length range ... it would be large, heavy, and expensive. Or if it's lightweight, like the often-bundled 24-120 VR, you're not going to grow past any of the many optical compromises you already have in the 18-200.<br /><br />Or why not try some faster glass on the D300? Try Sigma's stellar 50/1.4 HSM on your D300. The D300 can - with a touch of software in post - shoot very nice low-light images at ISO 1200 or so, and with a fast prime, you're into a lot more light gathering than your 70-200, and <em>way</em> more than with your 18-200. Or add the 17-55/2.8 to your current recipe (for use on the D300), and push the 70-200/2.8 over to a new D700. Those bodies share the same battery grip and ergonomics, which is nice.<br /><br />A fast prime, like the one I mentioned, will serve you now, and also make the trip to FX. And you're thousands of dollars ahead of the game.</p>

<p>A large percentage of my photos are night photos, and shot with D300. Saying that the D300 "sucks" at low light would be major news to the magazines that have published my shots in the past couple of years, and the calendar companies that have used my photos. You are correct that Nikon does not currently have the modern lenses to support their FX cameras. The most glaring omission is the total lack of pro quality f4 VR zooms. Canon has a whole system of them. Not sure why you would buy an expensive camera like a D3s and then stick lenses on it like an 18-200mm or the mediocre at best 24-120. As for me, I will not be rushing out to buy a D3s, but will instead will eventually buy a refurb or used D700. My strategy is let someone else take the big hit on depreciation, and put the money I saved on first class lenses. Sometime in the next two years there will be a less expensive "D800" type body with the D3s sensor, for thousands of dollars less. Enough to even buy a 24-70mm f2.8 perhaps. With digital cameras, patience is well rewarded.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

<p>Josh<br>

If you are troubled can I ask who is pushing you to spend $5000 on a body? there are a lot of very capable photographers who seem content with a D300 , the only person driving this nonsense is you. I suggest sit down think about it you before you invest such a sum, an expensive camera is not a magic bullit ,and I'm not sure that I agree with what you say about zooms . <br>

Steve</p>

<p>I hear about many people using FX cameras like D3 and D700 and all they use are 2 or 3 lenses. That is all they need. 12-24, 24-7- and 70-200. <br>

These are top of the line lenses and basically that is most than the regular amateur needs. The 24-70 alone would do most of the job. <br>

I also don't see the point on spending 5 G's on a camera and 1 G or less on lens. <br>

BTW, I hadn't noticed my D300 sucks!</p>

<p>Whoa Josh, the whole advantage of shooting with a Nikon is your have fifty (that's 5 zero) years of lenses to choose from. Go to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html and pick what you need then go to KEH or eBay and buy it. How about a 50mm f/1.2 or an 85mm f/1.4? Enjoy.<br>

Ken</p>

 

<p>I can not believe you are worried about the price of a 24-70mm if you are concidering a D3s. I would think its a perfect match though very big and heavy. Even then if you are having problems with a D300 and 50mm f1.8 I don't think there is a solution for you in the near future. Maybe you should consider a D700 and 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 and work harder at getting the shot.</p>

<p>It always amazes me that someone will call themselves a pro photographer, and they don't know how to use the cameras they already have. Then make a big speal complaining about it. There is no excuse for the lack of knowledge, there is a lot of books and ebooks that go in great detail on how to use light to your advantage, even if it is low light. So if you are having trouble, rather than make a fool of yourself by complaining. Show some humility and learn. There is no one person who knows it all. Even if they think they do.</p>

<p>Les, are you sure you're replying to someone's comments in this thread? Josh, the original poster in this thread, hasn't called himself a pro. He specifically states on his bio page he's just an amateur trying to learn. And your comments about making "a fool of yourself" and "humility"... it sounds like you're replying to comments that weren't made in this thread.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5722592">Les Ens</a> , Dec 05, 2009; 01:26 a.m. (<a href="../bboard/admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00VB3x">edit</a> | <a href="../bboard/admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00VB3x">delete</a> )</p>

 

<p>It always amazes me that someone will call themselves a pro photographer, and they don't know how to use the cameras they already have. Then make a big speal complaining about it. There is no excuse for the lack of knowledge, there is a lot of books and ebooks that go in great detail on how to use light to your advantage, even if it is low light. So if you are having trouble, rather than make a fool of yourself by complaining. Show some humility and learn. There is no one person who knows it all. Even if they think they do.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Josh - tripod or fast primes don't work for you? A fair bit of your work is nature photography. I don't shoot in real low light, but with winter in the UK, weak light with long lenses on my D300. It never fails to deliver unless the bio-mass behind the camera messes up.</p>

<p>Personally I wish Nikon would release a 300/2.8VR2 <strong>DX</strong> .</p>

<p>That said, I've recently been shooting at HI-1 on my D200, for color shots at 5x7 prints after noise reduction it's fine. If anything, there isn't enough "pseudo grain" for B&W images - probably need to dump in more noise at post. The D300 is great at high-iso but something about the noise pattern doesn't agree with me.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I appreciate everyone's response, with the exception of Les, who I believe was a little antagonistic (thanks Lex). First off, I'm not a professional photographer (please feel free to see what I like to shoot - www.jmephotography.com). I'm an amateur with a great passion for it and have been doing it for years.</p>

<p>Some of you perhaps misread my original post. My plan was not to use my 18-200 and/or a 24-120. I was merely saying that to take good candid shots without being in someone's face, you need the versatility of a longer lens, the 17-55 or 24-70 is nice, but not really long enough for me. That said, the suggestions of a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, etc are all great ones, but again, a prime lens makes taking real candid shots very difficult (hard to get a true candid when you need to be in someone's face to get the shot you want...)</p>

<p>Clearly, there are a lot of D300 owners who were somewhat insulted by my comment(s). Relax. No one is personally attacking your ability, your talents or your children. I'm merely saying that MY experience with the D300 in low light situations hasn't been good (and no, I'm not new enough to the game to use my 18-200 or even my 70-200 and expect stellar results - read my post again, and slower, and you'll see that I said even when I use my 50 1.8 I have a hard time getting great shots in low light). The people that I've spoken to praise the D3S for being "significantly" better than the D700 in low light settings, which in itself is far better than the D300. Therefore, what I'm interested in is getting the shots I want. Believe me, as much as I appreciate everyone's desire to help me save money, what I'm really interested in is help in determining if the D3S will yield the results that I'm looking for. Do you feel that the D700 would be a noticeable improvement over the D300 and the D3S is complete overkill? Set aside the financial issue for a moment and talk results. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a multimillionaire willing to needlessly waste money, but I love photography and I want to have equipment that yields the results that I want/need.</p>

<p>As for being an amateur/pro... as for those of you fortunate enough to be a full time photographer, I'm envious. But telling me that I'm basically insulting the magazines and calendars that have published your work is a bit extreme, no? Again, I'm not insulting your family, merely talking about my experience with my D300 and what I'm looking for with a more light sensitive model.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your advice. It's all fantastic. That's what I love about photo.net - the passion and the willingness of so many to help others!</p>

<p>Josh</p>

<p><em>I shoot a great deal of landscape, portraits and candids of people and am always finding myself shooting in low light where I can't use a flash or tripod. </em><br>

<br /> Landscape: 14-24/2.8 is the lens to own for landscape. If you'd rather not, you could try the Zeiss ZF 18mm, which now comes with a CPU chip, (just out recently.)<br>

<br /> Portrait: 105DC & 135DC Nikkors, 180/2.8 Nikkor, 70-200/2.8 VRII; Zeiss ZF 100/2. Any of these would be excellent portrait lenses.<br /> <br /><br>

Candids:<em> </em> Not sure what "candids" mean to you<em> </em> but any of the fast 50mm lenses (Nikkor, Zeiss ZF, Sigma) (even the cheap 1.8 is excellent) are great candid lenses.<br>

<br /> Has Nikon focused more on DX lens variety? Sure- because that's the bulk of the market right now. Rumors say that there will be more fixed-focal-length Nikkors coming out. Who knows for sure. But between what Nikon has out now, the new ZF.2 Zeiss lenses, and a few of the Sigmas, you can easily cover all of what you need.</p>

<p>these questions are so open that one can say almost anything and still be relevant. i am curious to have some opinions on this: I own a D2X and used it very happily for portraits (85/1.4) and use a small zoom 14-24mm: very good at 24 but so-so at 14. I don't like zooms because they give me too much choice and...they weigh a ton. I went around with an F6 and a 17-35 and it's like trekking with luggage. In fact i am happiest with primes lenses a wide angle (28mm or 35mm) and a portrait lens in my pocket. I shoot travel, looking for colourful situations and people; also colourful types. So my silly question: is it worth trading the D2X for a D700 to use my primes or just let things be as they are?</p>

<p><em>is it worth trading the D2X for a D700 to use my primes or just let things be as they are?</em><br>

<br /> I think the major upgrade of the D700 (vs. a D2X) is the light sensitivity. The D700 is not a light body, so that doesn't get you much either. If you want light weight, then a DX body with DX zooms are actually the lightest option (<a href="http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm">Thom Hogan recommends the 16-85 and the 70-300</a> as a lightweight set.)<br>

<br /> If you want to keep using your prime lenses then the D700 is great for that, but it's not a light or small DSLR.<br /> <br /> You sort of have to decide which to prioritize.</p>

<p>Gen, thanks for your suggestions. I do use a prime 50 1.8, but in terms of "candid" photos, I'm one to circulate around a room and around situations and love to shoot people from distances so they have no idea they're being photographed. That's been hard with a 50mm lens because of proximity.</p>

<p>Where I basically started this question was discerning between the D700 and D3S in terms of being the best in low light situations and what FX lenses are the best for me. For example, if I were to shoot the exact same picture with my D300, a D700 and a D3S with my 70-200 f/2.8 would there be a significant different in low light performance? I've been told the D3S would be a big improvement over the D700 and the D700 would be a big improvement over the D300. Is that true?</p>

<p>Again, I don't want to argue semantics, but just looking for opinions and experiences on these bodies with the same lenses being used (just comparing bodies - not the, "D3S with a low-end lens isn't as good as a D300 with the best lens" argument.)</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p>Josh</p>

<p><em>I've been told the D3S would be a big improvement over the D700 and the D700 would be a big improvement over the D300. Is that true?</em><br>

<br /> I suppose it really depends on your definition of "big improvement." I am coming from a D70s, and the D700 is, for me, a HUGE improvement. There are times when the D700 just astonishes me with the low light sensitivity, but I was coming from a 6MP DX body from a few years ago. I think you'd see a 'big' improvement if you went to the D3s, but it's hard to take candids with that pro body.<br /> <br /> Is there a retailer near you where you can test out the D700 or D3S?</p>

<p>Josh, I am afraid that saying the D300 "sucks" at low light is a huge exaggeration. I wrote photo.net's review for the D300, D700 and D3. For the D3 I used two samples from Nikon USA, but I own the D300 and D700 myself. The D3/D700 can give you 1 to 1.5 stops over the D300/D300S, and it looks like the new D3S will be another another stop to 1.5 stops better.</p>

<p>Sure, technology continues to improve quickly, but the D300/D300S is still very good under low light and for a lot less money. You are much better off spending more on some good and fast lenses. Super zooms such as the 18-200 are so slow that they are the limitation under dim light, and you sure don't want to pay $5200 on a D3S and then put some slow lens in front of it.</p>

<p>Again, speaking as a night photographer, I own D300 and have tried D700 several times. The D700 gives me about 1, <em>maybe</em> 2 stops higher ISO. For me, it's not quite enough difference for the money I'll have to spend for camera plus new f2.8 lenses. My judgement is the difference is just not significant enough for the current price of the camera. (It is going down though.) I am very resistant to spending big money on cameras because they lose value SO fast. Lenses tend to keep their value very well, as do flash. For what you seem to be doing, I'll agree a f2.8 zoom is the way to go. I use them for the same reasons. A used or refurb D700 plus either 24-70mm f2.8 or 28-80mm f2.8 will do what you want. I owuld also carry the Sigma 50mm f1.4. (And, how come you aren't talking about flash?) If this package doesn't do what you want, my thinking is you won't be able to blame the gear. It's now December. The prices of used gear almost always drops to a yearly low point on e Bay about the first of February. I'm thinking D700 will be going for maybe $1,600 then. There will be no deals on first class lenses though. People keep those, and demand is very high. Cameras are disposable; lenses you keep.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are much better off spending more on some good and fast lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, note that higher end lenses do not get updated as often as bodies unless there was a major flaw. For that reason alone, you are getting a better bang for your buck, so to speak.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 24-120mm has not exactly gotten rave reviews. The Online Photographer called it names I will not reproduce directly, but the experience that Mike had is illuminating. Scroll down the page to the lens review.<br /> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/11/nikon-24-120mm.html<br /> Bjorn Rorslett was not too impressed with the new 24-120mm either<br /> http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</p>

<p>On DX, the 70-200mm 2.8 VR, version I, has gotten superb reviews when used with DX cameras. I got it for that reason and in anticipation of FX coming in a few years. Too bad several reviewers find the corners of the first version of this lens do not sharpen up at all on FX.</p>

<p>I got the D700 for the same reason you cite, low light high ISO ability. Getting lenses that are appropriate, and do not result in another house mortgage, is a challenge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that's just silly. It's impressive that Matt Laur managed such a very helpful opening response.</p>

<p>I'll just echo what others have said in that you should probably look more towards a D700 and some faster glass. </p>

<p>I own the D300 and the D700, and while I can see a substantial improvement in terms of hi-ISO performance, I have to say that the difference is only a stop or two. A pretty small jump compared with what you would see shooting at f/2.8 versus the max aperture of that 18-200mm. </p>

<p>I just got back from shooting at a pool and even with a D700 the 300mm f/4 struggles to suck in as much light as I would like, and I often still turn to my faster glass. </p>

<p>If you can afford the D3s plus great fast glass then don't hesitate. If not then go with the D700 and great glass. </p>

<p>Don't skimp on lenses!</p>

<p><em>When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range, but where do you go with FX? Carry around two lenses - a 24-70 and a 70-200 and swap them quickly? Hard to do without missing shots.</em></p>

<p>This is completely wrong. Classic lenses for people candids include 35mm and 50mm prime lenses. I happen to like 85mm for this (on FX), it allows me to play with subject isolation. A zoom that goes to tele and is f/5.6 wide open is totally the wrong tool for people candids IMHO. You get cluttered backgrounds which aren't quite sharp but neither are they soft enough not to be a distraction. And using a wide-range zoom would totally defy the purpose of buying an expensive FX camera in the first place. Get a bunch of primes or f/2.8 zooms for your FX camera. </p>

<p>The missing shot syndrome, huh. It doesn't matter which shots you miss. Only those shots that you do get matter, and you should seek to improve their quality, and their communicative and emotional impact. You cannot catch everything of interest anyway; you'd have to be everywhere at the same time, all the time, to do that. Focus on something and get it done. You don't need to have immediate access to all imaginable focal lengths to do specific shots. IMO subject to background isolation is a key compositional and image construction tool and that's only available with fast lenses.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for some great help and a very colorful discussion.</p>

<p>Can I just ask one simple question... bottom line, can anyone tell me how much of an improvement over the D300 the D700 is in low light situations? Furthermore, how much better is the D3S over the D700? Obviously assume you're shooting with the exact same lens. Some people say 1-2 stops better with a D700 over a D300 and then go on to say that the D3S will go 1-2 stops over the D700. That's a 2-4 stop improvement over the D300 with a D3S - is that correct to say?</p>

<p>My trouble is, and many people seem to miss what I've said a few times above, that I use a D300 with a 50mm 1.8, a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 18-200mm. Clearly, the 18-200 isn't a good low light lens. I know that. But I find FOR MY SITUATIONS that the 50 1.8 is good, but still shoots dark. I'm wondering if I put that lens on a D700 and then a D3S, would I be able to take shots that are of great improvement over my D300? Some shots (if shooting on program) can't even be handheld because I'm well below the 1/60 range. Does that mean with a D700 those shots that are at 1/60 will be in the 1/125 - 1/250 range?</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I find FOR MY SITUATIONS that the 50 1.8 is good, but still shoots dark.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a 50mm/f1.8 on the D300, which should give you very good ISO 1600 and acceptable 3200, is too dark, the quality of light has to be very poor. There is no camera that can compensate for such poor light.</p>

<p>I haven't tested the D3S yet, but at most it is 2 to 3 stops better than the D300. Getting a 50mm/f1.4 is a far cheaper way to gain you 2/3 stop. But I would look for better subjects and lighting elsewhere.</p>