So I got a "new" Nikon D700

<p>No regrets, but some people have asked, "Why would you do that?"<br>

It certainly wasn't my intention.<br>

I wanted to have a backup body for my D7100, was thinking of getting another one and set it up the same way, looked at the D600 which is basically the same as the D7100 with a full frame sensor and same control layout. D800 was out of my budget, but I saw the D700, which has a D3 sensor, auto focus and 12 really good megapixels. Plus I have a couple of full frame lenses I'm using with the D7100. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 and a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro. I also bought a 50mm f/1.8D on the cheap. Best part, the camera had a shutter count of 8800. Like brand new. <br>

I didn't think shooting full frame again (haven't since film) would be such a difference, but it really is. Especially now that I'm getting older and the eyes are starting to strain. The colors straight out the camera are amazing. Heavy piece of equipment, especially with the battery grip and 70-200mm on it. File sizes are manageable, but I keep in mind that my framing should be better because I don't want to crop so much as I would with the 24mp D7100. I think it'll be a great portrait camera. Focus is quick, startup time is almost non existent. It's a sweet piece of tech. <br>

So the question is, do I add a 24-70mm f/2.8 or maybe the 24-120mm f/4 for general photos? Maybe a prime for portraits, like an 85, 135 or a 200mm? <br>

Someone get the Pepto, I think I got G.A.S.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>There are some really good deals on the 24-85, which is very good. You can't go wrong with the 24-120. Both are excellent and give a lot of flexibility.</p>

<p>Just got back from a walk-around with my D700 and an old 35mm Nikkor-OC that I just AI'd. Really is a wonderful camera, and the colors are really nice.<br>

I mainly use it as a back up for my D4 for work. And I have always liked the original 24-70G f2.8 lens with it (have not tried the new 24-70E).<br>

You're right, the 12MP is a bit scant these days, and you do need to avoid heavy coping, but it's still a very usable camera, and a lot of fun.</p>

<p>If you just want a walkaround zoom for convenience, 28-105 AF-D is a good option on D700. It costs almost nothing.</p>

<p>Good deal on a great camera but I wouldn't call 8K clicks new. I just bought a D7000 refurbished by Nikon. Came with a shutter count of 37. That's "new"! :)</p>

<p>I really like the AF-D 28-105mm lens on my D800. Holds up well, even at 36mp.</p>

<p>@Patrick: 37? That's great. But 8800 clicks is only about 6% of the life cycle, so that's still pretty new to me.<br>

Thanks for the suggestion on the 28-105 and the 24-85. I'll look into those. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just bought a D7000 refurbished by Nikon. Came with a shutter count of 37. That's "new"! :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>most likely, they reset the shutter count post-refurb.</p>

<p>Considered that, thought I'd leave it alone. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>most likely, they reset the shutter count post-refurb.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe. If I hadn't just got one with 12K I'd say that was likely. I returned that unit b/c it was splattering the sensor with oil. The replacement came on Friday. That said, since the fix for the oil on sensor is a new mirror box assembly, mine may be one that was fixed, the first one, had not yet been fixed.</p>

<p>Well done! Another +1 for 28-105 for general purpose on d700.</p>

<p>And BTW, what about a portrait lens?</p>

<p>The 24/70 weighs a ton, Think about that, 24/120 is a dream.</p>

 

<p>If the 24-70 weights a ton, the 24-120/4 is 3/4 of a ton... :D<br /> The "new" 24-85VR and the 28-105 are close to half the weight of a 24-70. The "old" 24-85AFS is even lighter.</p>

<p>The 28-105 is a "sleeper" lens. And if (lack of) distortion is important to you, well worth checking out.<br>

The lens hood is the worst feature - it looks like Fidos food bowl..</p>

And the 28-105 has a close focus option.

<p>Thanks. I went with the 28-105 and yeah, that hood is funky! I should have it in my hand tomorrow.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Rich, I don't bother with the hood, my hand makes a far more effective shade when required. The hood turns the combo into a bulky affair whereas part of the joy of the lens is its compactness. It all balances out very nicely with the grip too. Have fun!</p>

<p>The D700 is a workhorse, and regardless of what the megapixel counters say, 12.3 MP is plenty sufficient for most work, including magazine publication. Been there, done that.</p>

<p>The 28-105 is a "sleeper" lens. And if (lack of) distortion is important to you, well worth checking out.<br>

The lens hood is the worst feature - it looks like Fidos food bowl..</p>

I use the 28-105 also on my D800. It's a nifty lens that I keep on the camera for weekend excursions. You're right about the hood. I replaced mine with the HN-23 which came with my 85mm f1.8D. It works fine with no vignetting.

Congratulations on your new toy, Rich. I had a D700 for several years (my first Nikon body). I think I found the metering more consistent than my D800 and D810, and the AF more prone to hitting - possibly because the reduced resolution was less prone to showing up sharpness issues. For the same reason, I shot a lot more at wide apertures than I do these days, because it was harder to see when the lens wasn't keeping up. The ISO button is in an awkward place on the D700, but I prefer the meter mode and AF mode selection to later cameras (where you can't get at them right-handed). The live view is a little iffy, but actually it's what I was waiting for when switching from Canon - I shoot a little tilt-shift, and having live view of any sort is very helpful; Canon's 5D2 took so long to turn up that I'd jumped ship. No regrets, FWIW (although I might have some if I was a heavy 200-400 f/4 shooter!)

 

> 12 really good megapixels

 

I would slightly take issue with that statement. I kept my D700 as backup when I got a D800, and it's true that at the same ISO, the D700 pixels might behave slightly better (since they're 1/3 the area) - though over the whole image, the D800 has the best part of a stop improvement over the D700. The D700 does have a really strong low-pass filter, too, so even at the pixel level you don't get the sharpness that a D800e or D810 will give you - and likely also the recent DX bodies (if your lens keeps up). The real kicker for me was the base dynamic range difference - with a D700, I let ISO float from 200 to about 1600 without worry. Even though the D8x0 series is better at the same ISO, I try much harder to keep it at base ISO because I know there's dynamic range to recover in post. But Canon shooters have been dealing with this for long enough, so it's obviously not the worst problem in the world - it's just that, since the D7000, technology has made some improvements.

 

The 24-120 f/4 is bigger than I expected; I have one, but my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is barely bigger and gets more use. I'd steer clear of the variable aperture 24-120 - it's optically poor even on the D700. If you're after a "street sweeper", I used a 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G as a body cap when I didn't know what else I wanted. It doesn't remotely keep up with a modern body, but on a D700, preferably down a stop or so (and with something like DxO cleaning it up), it's good enough that the flexibility is welcome, and it's small and light enough to leave on the body just in case. The 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 is even smaller and lighter. I'm sure more modern zooms are better - I try to steer clear of the "not really cheap but not really premium" part of the market, since I feel worse about iffy optics if I've spent more money getting them, but YMMV.

 

Portrait wise, the 85mm Samyang is decent if you cant stand manual focus, and their 135mm is allegedly even better; I've also used a 135mm f/2.8 AI with some success (for a while I carried my D700 with 28-200 in a toploader, with a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and 135mm f/2.8 AI in the front pocket). The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is decent if you want AF, but it has quite strong LoCA, so watch out for your backgrounds going green; the newest 85mm Sigma is supposedly in a different class if you can face the cost. The 105mm Nikkor f/1.4 and 135mm Sigma f/1.4 Art lenses are both extremely well regarded, but cost. Others swear by their 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC Nikkors; I mostly swore at my 135 f/2 DC (focus inaccuracy, softness, but mostly really extreme LoCA), so YMMV there.

 

Hope that helps. Enjoy your NAS!

. I think I found the metering more consistent than my D800 and D810, and the AF more prone to hitting - possibly because the reduced resolution was less prone to showing up sharpness issues.

I just upgraded from a D700 to a D750, and my experience is the same. I feel like I got away with a lot more with my D700 that I can no longer on the D750. The metering was right on and I feel like I never missed and had a very low percentage of out of focus shots, it sort of made me feel invincible. :) Enjoy your new to you camera, I think the D700 is a fab choice!

ETA: I love the 24-85 as a general walk-around lens. I started with the D version, and really liked the close focusing ability, but the quality of the newer version is noticeable on the D700. FYI...

Edited July 7, 2017 by yardkat

I bought my D700 when it was released (2009?) and was very pleased with but have since upgraded. The D700 is an excellent body you'll love it. I recommend buying the Nikon eyepiece magnifier DK-17M (~ $40), it will give you a larger view through your viewfinder. Once I put it on it became part of my camera and has not been off since.

12mp is enough for 20x30" prints once processed in Photoshop or Lightroom.

I agree with the person who said the 28-105mm AF-D was a sleeper, so is the 24-85 AFS. The real sleeper is the 70-210 f4-5.6 AF-D. While it sells for about $100 used it will match the 70-200 f2.8 ED's performance once it's stopped down to f8. If you don't need to shoot at f2.8 and want a very light and compact zoom have a look at one. At f8 it is difficult to see a difference between it and my 180mm f2.8 ED AF-D.

I also agree with statements about the 135mm lenses. My 135mm f2 AIs is stunning even at f2, I use it for concerts. From what I've read the 135mm f2 DC is that much better.

My only complaint is the new line of fast wide angles are huge and heavy (besides the cost). The older AIs lenses are only OK with my D700 & D750, with the 28mm f2 probably being the best overall wide (close tie with the 35/1.4). My 24mm f3.5 TC-E is excellent but awkward to carry around and usually requires a tripod to take advantage of it. It's much sharper than my 24/2 AI. The biggest disappointment was the 24-120mm (all versions). Whenever you have a zoom that offers more that 3x magnification of it's lowest focal length something has to give. The quality at extremes is usually soft wide open and even stopped down at the corners. But the Gold Ring ED lenses like the 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 f2.8's are all excellent, but heavy, bulky, and expensive. That is the price we pay for excellence.

Hope your out enjoying it!

Please note that this thread started in may 2016 - so in the meantime, I guess the OP has gathered some very nice work with the D700 and the newness has gone a bit (even so, the D700 remains a lovely camera - still can't find a reason to upgrade mine).

Oh damnit, not again. I don't mind resurrecting an old thread that's got useful information rather than re-hashing it, but it's a bit too easy to fail to realise whether you're helping the original poster. I don't know whether those resurrecting these threads are doing so deliberately - if they are, maybe we should encourage people to make it clear that the origin of the thread was old? Or we could hope for a site design tweak that makes the thread start date more obvious...

I can't understand these old threads rising to the surface like a bloated corpse.

 

On my device they're clearly listed in most recently answered order. Plus the date of last access is clearly shown too.

 

Anyone for effective reading lessons?