Nikon D700 or Nikon 70-200 2.8?

[monica_cielo1]

<p>I have some extra money and I am debating if Ishould buy the nikon d700 or nikor 70-200 2.8? I shoot with a nikon d7000 35mm 1.8 50mm 1.4 and 2 zoom lenses... I do a lot of children portraits and family.... not sure what to get! please help!</p>

<p>TY!</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>the question really is do you have a back up body for the D7000? if the answer is no - then I'd get a second D7000. </p>

<p>Is there a compelling reason you want full frame? Are you an old 35 mm shooter who misses the format? If you can answer those questions yes - then go for a D700 </p>

<p>70-200 on a dx is comparable to 105-300 on Fx for field of view - I shoot a lot of children, portraits ect both fx and Dx and have rarely used the 70-200 even on my Fx. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Whenever someone askes whether she/he should buy another lens or another body, it is clear that neither one is necessary. And my answer is usually buy neither. My recommendation is that only buy something that will absolutely improve your photography.</p>

<p>The D700 is clearly very late in its production cycle and I have been saying for over a year that it is a bad idea to get one now, unless you absolutely need one immediately. Many many things on the D700 need improvement. See my post on Jun 16, 2011; 05:55 p.m in the following thread on the specific areas where the D700 needs improvement: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ytvg</a></p>

<p>The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, especially the 2nd version, is an excellent lens. If your money is burning a hole in your pocket, definitely buy the lens first. However, after introducing the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, Nikon has to be planning a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Unless you must have f2.8, an f4 version of the 70-200 with VR should be much lighter and a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>I would wait a few months to see what Nikon has to announce.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Monica: be sure you understand that DX-specific lenses (like your 35/1.8, and possibly your zoom lenses, though you don't mention what they are) aren't going to be suitable on a D700. Which means you may have to re-think your lens collection in order to leverage an FX-format body. Would you be <em>keeping</em> the D7000, or selling it, if you went with the D700?<br /><br />Your 50/1.4 - used on a D700 - will feel, more or less, like your 35mm does on your D7000 right now (in terms of field of view, though you'll have noticeably less DoF if you shoot at wide apertures). There are lots of things to consider, here.<br /><br />I find the 70-200/2.8, on a DX body like your D7000, to be a very useful lens. It's my bread-and-butter for moving targets like kids, and especially for action stuff in the field. But it is a large, heavy, expensive lens. You should handle one in person, if you can.<br /><br />Personally, I would NOT buy a new D700 at this point, regardless of your motivation. If nothing else, wait a bit to see what's next from Nikon - either because the replacement will really be talking to you for some specific reason, or because the D700 will become noticeably less expensive the moment that new product is announced.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The 70-200mm Version II is a tremendous lens. If you don't absolutely, positively need a larger viewfinder for some reason, go for the lens. It is an excellent portrait lens (actually an excellent everything lens) -images are extremely sharp (as good as any prime), contrasty, colorful and the bokeh (blurred background) it delivers is very eye appealing.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I'm going to second Shun's advise:</p>

<p>If you don't know what you want to buy it means you don't know what you need. If you don't know what you need then you shouldn't buy anything until you do know.</p>

<p>Based on the type of photography you do and the equipment you state you have in your post, I wouldn't buy the D700 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 until you have proper lighting equipment.</p>

<p>Lighting equipment and knowing how to use it will improve your photography much faster than any other equipment you can buy. It's also usually the LAST equipment most beginning photographers buy. Control the light and you control the image. The $2200 that you would spend on a D700 or 70-200mm f/2.8 would buy a lot of lighting equipment.</p>

<p>Really that's just my two cents, but if you want an answer to D700 or 70-200mm f/2.8 here it is:<br>

Don't buy a D700 until after Nikon's press release at the end of the month. If there is no D700 replacement announced, you know that the D700 has another 6 months of shelf life. If it is announced, you'll likely see the price on the D700 drop, maybe into the sub-$2000 range, leading into the holiday season.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you must have f2.8, an <strong>f4 version of the 70-200 with VR</strong> should be much lighter and a lot cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Such lens exists for Nikon? Why can't I find it in their prospects? Neither on their website?<br>

If I'd think about what I want, I'd get the lens if you have a D7000. Contrary to Shun's opinion, I think the D700 is a great camera and I'd buy it anytime again, now.<br>

(Monica, my saying is that if you believe you really really need another camera, then please yourself, but others here are right: save your money and get some great lighting gear instead).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Monike, unfortunately, you did not quote the one sentence immediately prior to what you quoted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, after introducing the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, Nikon has to be planning a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Unless you must have f2.8, an f4 version of the 70-200 with VR should be much lighter and a lot cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was why I asked the OP to wait.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Shun is right - the logical progression would be for Nikon to introduce a 70-200 f4 which would round out their F4 constant line-up -</p>

<p>The question to ask yourself on the lens is this: "Is there something I need to shoot that I'm missing because I don't have a 70-200? " if the answer is yes - then go for it.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[warren_wilson]

<p>Assuming you are experiencing an attack of the dreaded NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) and a few extra dollars to indulge it, I would keep in mind that the 70-200 will outlast a succession of new bodies very nicely. My name is Warren and I have NAS.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I agree with Shun. I have a D700 and will not be interested in what ever FX bodies are released unless it is much lighter. Sounds more like want vs need, a case of NAS?</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I use my 70-200mm f 2.8 VR (I) lens a lot with my D 300s and D 700 to take pictures of my granddaughter who is two and a half. I also use my 35mm f1.8 DX lens on my D 300. I would consider getting the 70-200mm VR I or II if you really needed that focal length and that f2.8 speed and you can handle the weight of the lens. It is heavy! I agree with all of the other posters--skip the D 700; consider another D 7000 or another DX body. One other lens option--a Nikon 85mm f1.4 or f1.8. Joe Smith</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i can't see the 70-200/2.8 ever being a bad investment. unlike the d7000 or d700, its depreciation hit will be minimal if at all. since i bought mine, the price has actually increased by several hundred dollars. OTOH, if you don't shoot sports or action, though, you might be just as well-served by the tamron version, which costs 1/3rd less, has about the same IQ, but lacks the top-notch build and the powerful AF-S focus motor.</p>

<p>buying a d700 right <em>now</em> is probably not a good idea unless you have a pro shoot tomorrow and can't do without it. at the very least, i'd wait to see what Nikon's expected announcements at the end of the month bring. if they bring out a new FX body, it could cause the d700 prices to drop back to reasonable levels, i.e. pre-tsunami. if not, that new FX body will probably come sometime early next year, possibly just prior to the 2012 Olympics.</p>

<p>in any event, i recommend buying glass first before making a FX move so that you're well equipped if and when you get a new body. the 70-200 works just as well on DX as on FX, and many shooters (wildlife aficionados in particular) like the extra reach on the long end you get on an APS-C body. if you do stick a 70-200 on that d7000, i would also pick up the grip so it will balance better. that lens is big, long, and heavy.</p>

 

[goldbergbarry]

<p>One thing to consider is that if you pick up a used 70-200, that it will hold its resale value quite well. Meaning that if you change you mind, you can sell it probably for what you paid for it. <br>

<br />Meanwhile cameras tend to depreciate a lot faster as new models come and go every 2-3 years.</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Monica, I have D700 and 70-200/2.8. While D700 is still a very nice camera I agree that unless you find an unbelievable good deal is not a good idea to buy it at the very end of its production cycle. In the same time, I do not know how strong are you... but I rarely use my 70-200 because is heavy and I get tired to handhold my camera with this lens for hours... It is a great lens in term of IQ but I personally do not use it apart of some action shots or for some events where I really need the versatility of this zoom.<br>

For you as a portrait specialist... I think more important is to secure a backup body (another D7000 is a very good idea but a D5100 could work as well) and a good fast prime... like Sigma 85/1.4 which is a gem for portraits or at least Nikon 85/1.4 AF-D (considering that your total budget does not offer space for Nikkor 85/1.4 G).<br>

IMHO you need to invest in glass and bodies that are tailored for your kind of shooting. If you really think that you may need a longer lens you can consider Nikon 105/2 DC or 135/2 DC but there may be a chance in the near future to see those lenses upgraded by Nikon.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>One issue worth mentioning is that most all zooms and teles can be physically intimidating to children (and many adults) expecially close up. <br>

The cropped DX sensor of the D7000 body you already have offers a larger subject magnification ratio, which when photographing kids may allow for a more candid approach than an FX body. I recently sold my little used 3+ year-old 70-200mm VR for quite nearly what I paid for it. Nikon lenses, treated well, retain most of their value. That said, I don't use the focal length all that much because I don't photograph weddings or events very often. I sold the 70-200VR because I also have and like the 105VR better (which I find particularly good for portraiture mated to a DX body).</p>

[dan_ded]

<p>Monica, there are three who have advised you to buy a backup D7000. I disagree with that advice.</p>

<p>At least I probably disagree with it. I'm sure the advice was well meant, and it certainly is good advice for some people. But those people are rare. There are just a few who need redundancy immediately available. A wedding photographer, for example, will need to continue even if her camera fails in the middle of the ceremony. </p>

<p>Now I don't know your situation, and you may fall into this or a similar category. But most photographers, at least most amateur photographers, do not need a backup immediately available. If your camera failed, could you at least wait for B&H or Amazon to ship you another over night? Many can afford to wait weeks for a camera to be repaired, frustrating as it might be. Unless you really need it, there's no sense in buying redundancy ahead of time.</p>

<p>Now there are others that like to shoot with two bodies for convenience and/or variety. If you're in this category, I assume you want DX+FX variety just from the question you asked.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Monica the OP wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of children portraits and family</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To Dan Ded: It is not clear that she is photographing professionally, i.e. getting paid to take family portraits, or she is just doing it for fun. If she is photographing professionally, having at least one backup body (and back up lenses) is a must. As a pro, you should not tell your clients that your camera is not working and you need to reschedule; that is extremely unprofessional. I typically bring at least three bodies so that I have two backups.</p>

<p>I suppose some people suggest that she should get a backup camera because they assume that she is shooting professionally. The backup camera can be something simple such as a used D80 or D90.</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>It looks like you might be doing paid shoots, and if so, then a back-up body is necessary. If that's the case, then I would rent/borrow a second body until the new announcements that should come later in the month are made. Once this happens, you'll have an idea of what's out there. But if you are thinking of backing-up a D7000, I wouldn't recommend a D700 because of its age and its sensor size (not too many people use an FX camera to back-up a DX camera). If you absolutely need a second body to own today, maybe I would think about a D300s (especially since you have DX lenses).</p>

<p>While the 70-200mm is a remarkable lens, I would only buy one if you feel you really need it.</p>

[dan_ded]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose some people suggest that she should get a backup camera because they assume that she is shooting professionally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my supposition too, and was what I meant by the advice being "well meant." But the advice to buy a backup was never explicitly qualified by an "if you're shooting professionally". So, considering that she might not be shooting professionally, I said that "most <em>amateur</em> photographers do not need a backup immediately available." [emphasis not in my original]</p>

[Two23]

<p>You do a lot of children etc. portraits. I assume you have a fairly complete lighting system--stands, softboxes, maybe monolight & battery packs, grids, etc.? For portraits, lighting makes a considerably bigger difference in quality than any lens and certainly more than a camera will.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[angkordave]

<p>A 70-200 lens on DX (105 to 300mm equiv ) is in my opinion too long for intimate portraits. Its great for sport, stage shooting and wildlife (with AFS teleconverter). On the occasions I have used this lens for portraiture, I tend to use the shorter end of the range and often have to back off for full length shots. This is OK for outside or large studio; but inside you are likely to want a wider range.<br>

I use a Sigma 17-70 for portraiture mostly as this is more usable than a 17-55 which is too short which sometimes had me using a 70-200 because of the focal length gap. I now find that the 17-70 range is perfect for just about every photographic situation and leave my 70-200 in the bag or at home most of the time.<br /> On FX the 70-200 makes a lot more sense as it much shorter in practice. Don't forget you are going to have to spend a disproportionate amount of money for D700+70-200 F2.8 for very little benefit.<br>

You don't state what other zoom lenses you have, but if you have a 18-55 kit lens or 18-200; you will find nether lens great for portraiture, due to lens speed and poor bokeh. As you have both 35mm 1.8 and 50mm F1.4 you will probably have realized the benefit of good bokeh already.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>I have a nikon 80 200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 and D300 works great for portraits </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>You do a lot of children etc. portraits. I assume you have a fairly complete lighting system--stands, softboxes, maybe monolight & battery packs, grids, etc.? For portraits, lighting makes a considerably bigger difference in quality than any lens and certainly more than a camera will.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, I photograph children quite often and I have no monolight, softboxes, etc. etc. There are many ways to photograph portraits. Small children tend not to stay still, and using a traditional studio set up to photogaphy them can be very difficult and painful.</p>

<p>In any case, the OP is asking for camera and lens suggestions here.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a compelling reason you want full frame? Are you an old 35 mm shooter who misses the format?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not necessarily recommending the D700, but to suggest that the reason for shooting full-frame is about nostalgia or familiarity with 35mm film is a bit shallow (or at least simplistic), in my opinion. I shoot both full-frame and crop sensor, and I have reasons for shooting the one that I shoot upon a given occasion.</p>

<p>I would second the call for questioning which direction your photography is going. Since the 70-200 on the crop sensor D7000 gives you an effective focal range of 105-300, I think that a case could be made for going for the glass in this case--but only you can answer that.</p>

<p>In any case, going with the glass now in no way prevents you from moving into full-frame photography in the future. In fact, it prepares you for the move by developing a lens collection appropriate for full-frame. I like both crop sensor and full-frame and have no axe to grind on any of this, except for one thing: I do like good glass, and the reach of the 70-200 could be useful in a lot of different contexts.</p>

<p>Full-frame cameras and lenses are going to be heavier. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>