Zoom suggestions for Nikon D3

I am interested in buying a D3. I am an amateur photographer mainly interested

in landscape, travel & portrait photograpahy. Until now I have used F5. Also I

have FM3a & F3HP. I only use manual lenses with them. With my F5 the most

commonly used zooms were 17-35/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 lenses. The 17-35/2.8 is my

favourite lens so far. I did not use my 28-70/2.8 or 35-70/2.8 so I sold them.

 

As we know there are 2 new zooms 24-70/2.8 & 14-24/2.8. Which zooms should I

use with a D3? I am tempted to buy them both & sell my favourite 17-35/2.8 to

fund them. I am not sure whether I might regret this as the 17-35 range is very

popular & previously I did not use much of the 28-70 range. But the new zoom is

more versatile as it covers 24-70!!! And for superwides I can use the 14-24. I

would appreciate suggestions & rationale behind.

If you have the money and can carry the weight, 14/24 24/70 70/200 all 2.8.

 

Alturnative 2

 

Keep the 17/35 and add the 70/300 VR and maybe a 50 prime for the middle. The 50 1.8 is cheap, pleantiful, and very good quality.

If you didn't use your 28-70 you probably won't use the 24-70 that much either.

 

You have everything you need for now. The 17-35 and the 70-200. Just get the camera (I

think the D3 is overkill for non-professional photography, but if I could afford one easily,

I probably would get one... It seems it's not a stretch for you). The 50mm f1.4 or f1.8

would be a nice low-light addition for real cheap.

 

But shoot with the 17-35 and the 70-200 for a while. THEN buy the lenses you need to

fill the gaps you wish you could shoot at. The 14-24 is NOT a replacement for the 17-35.

It is a very specialized lens, incapable of taking filters. You only need it if you really need

that perspective. Personally, I don't. I'd rather have the 17-35

Use what you have if it works. A 50mm f1.4 might be nice. The format is so close I don't see a need for a new lense unless you feel the need to spend. I wish I could afford the 17-35 f2.8, its big and heavy but from what I have read close to perfect.

I agree with Peter. You already good lenses. Play with the D3 for awhile and see what you

need. If you are coming from an F5, I am not sure why you would need anything other than

what you have, assuming you are able to capture what you want, now. You are going to have

so much fun with the D3, I wouldn't worry about new glass now. Enjoy!

<I>I am an amateur photographer mainly interested in landscape, travel & portrait photograpahy.</I>

<P>

The D3 is optimized for sports, action and perhaps wedding photography. You certainly can use it for landscape and portrait photography, but IMO it is largely a mismatch. If you can afford one, there is nothing wrong with using the D3 for those other types of photography. I too agree that you should useing your current lenses on the D3 for a while and see whether you need to add to or replace your current lenses.

Many thanks for the very quick respenses. The reason I selected D3 is because it is the only Nikon DSLR with a full frame eventhough it is far too expensive. I prefer to have the full frame hence the reason not buying a DLSR so far. Should I also consider D300?

 

May be I should get the D3 and then think about the extra lenses. Financially this is more favourable as well. Also I do have 15/3.5 & 8/2.8 if I needed anything wider than the 17-35/2.8.

I think you are pretty well set for lenses. Butthe 14-24mm f/2.8 is better than anything else in that focal length range. It sounds like you have some money so my suggestion is that you rent the 14-24mm and try it out, doing A/B comparisons with the 15mm and the 17-35mm where the ranges overlap.

 

You have the 8mm f/2.8? Wow!

Curious as to why you prefer to pay for full-frame? How are you shooting/using photos

that you "need" it... or perhaps you just "want" it... nothing wrong with that either, just

trying to understand...

 

The D3 is not really optimized for the kind of photography you do, as Shun pointed out. If

it were me, I'd invest in the D300, a 12-24, a 17-55 maybe, plus the lenses you have (still

money left over, compared with the D3) and I'll be that you couldn't tell the difference

between photos taken with it in most cases with photos taken with the D3, for what you

are shooting.

I do shoot digital, but I still use a Mamiya 7 and film when I travel. Not useful for tight head shots - but I prefer environmental portraits anyway. But I print large - and the image quality is stunning.

The 8/2.8 is quite manageable in terms of bulk and weight. It has a decent built in filter wheel (though it sticks out) unlike the 14-24 zoom.

 

The 14-24 isn't much different than this in terms of the bulk.

"Curious as to why you prefer to pay for full-frame?" I love my wide angles and with the full frame it will not be cropped. This is the reason. If I had a D300X with a full frame sensor I will go for it.

So Cham,

 

A D300 with a 12-24 DX lens would give you FOV-equivalent of 18mm, which is about the

same as your favorite lens, the 17-35. If you could get an acceptable image from that,

wouldn't that be worth at least seriously considering?

 

Just trying to make sure you're considering every possibility, and since the D3 is geared

towards those fast sports shooters and is VERY expensive... I still think the D300 would be

better for the photography you do.

 

But if you have to have the full frame sensor, that's cool, too...

It really boils down to lens speed and sensor speed. The DX lenses like the 12-24mm Nikkor give you excellent image quality. Now just this widest DX zoom is not a f2.8 lens. You can go f2.8 from wide to tele end with the D3 AND you get the extra ISO speed. So it is rather clear if you need the speed, especially in the wide range, go for the D3 - if not the D300 is the best choice. This is disregarding the cost of the D3 and the weight.

You have the arguably the 2 best zooms Nikon has ever made. Why would you dump the 17-35 or the 70-200? You would treat the D3 a full frame sensor camera, just like the F5 only its digital. Unless you want even wider than 17mm there will be no advantage or upgrade or improvement in quality with other than those 2 lenses. What makes you think you need new lenses?