d700 as Main and d7000 back up Lens kit question

[mandymojica]

<p>Hi everyone, I've been slowly rebuilding my equipment after an exented time with out shooting professionally. I'm back in the game and slowly building. My question is I started with a d7000, a Tokina 12-24 ultra wide dx II , Nikon 18-55 Dx, Nikon 55-200 Dx. I recently purchased the D700 with the nikon and the AF_S Nikor 70-200 f2.8. I know not a good Idea to have an fx main and dx back up but it's what I started with and I needed an fx. How can I make the best out of what I have and have an all around lens kit for the d700. I know I can use a dx on the fx I will just have to deal with the cropping factor and for now I'm willing to do that but I need lenses all around lenses for the 700 . I shoot everything from sports to portraits and fashion. If anyone can maybe give me an idea of the best way to go. Maybe what should I invest in next for the 700? Many Thanks in advance. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sounds like you need a 24-70/2.8. That's a great work-horse that will go from wide to short tele on your D700, and will do wonderfully on the D7000, considering you have the 12-24 for when you need to go wider on DX. <br /><br />The 24-70/2.8, and your 70-200/2.8 cover lots of ground, and very, very well. But you'll need a good pack/bag, as those lenses aren't small or light.</p>

[mandymojica]

<p>Awesome! Thanks do you think think the Tamron 28-75 ? would be a good alternative? I just shelled out quite a bit for the 70-200mm. I'm trying to keep the cost down. <br>

Yes I got the </p>

<h3 ><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tamarack%20expedition%205588&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tamrac.com%2F5588.htm&ei=9B-XUO7bMom89QTmz4HQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEN_AhRZ3MgPHUTuPVsm987_xL7oA"><em>Tamrac</em> - Model <em>5588 Expedition</em> 8x Photo Backpack</a> does not bring wheels but I figure a can get one of those suitcase dollies in case it gets to heavy? </h3>

[daverhaas]

<p>Mandy - </p>

<p>I have the older version of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as well as the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 - both are decent performers and the Tamron is significantly lighter than then the Nikon. </p>

<p>The only issue I have with the older Tamron is that it is an external focus model and I keep forgetting that when I hold it. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tamron 28-75 is what i would pick, were i in your shoes. add a voigtlander 20/3.5 for wide stuff.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>you could get a used Nikon 28-70, too. That was a great lens and everybody bought it till the 24-70 came out.</p>

[andylynn]

I have a Tamron 28-75, a D700 and used to have a D7000. It does very well on both cameras. It's not particularly sharp at

2.8 but sharpens up very quickly and looks great at 3.5. Mine is an older one with screwdriver AF that only cost me $250

used, so I'd call it one of the better value purchases I've made.

[dave_petley2]

<p>Hell No D800 Main D700 back up with the nikon 24-70 2.8 lens </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>She did mention budget, Dave. You're over-reaching by several thousand of her dollars at the moment.<br /><br />Regardless, I'd go with a 24-70, rather than a 28-70. That extra 4mm on the wider end makes a real difference.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If f/2.8 is not a strict requirement, the 24-120 f/4VR isn't too bad either - so far, mine does impress me quite a bit (though I have to say, I just got it 3 days ago). I realise the 24-70 is just that bit better, but it costs a lot more, weighs a lot more and the extra range is very nice to have.<br>

Or, if a zoom is not strictly necessary, get the new f/1.8 primes - they're a sweet trio.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p> i vote for the 24-70. If money is an issue you could go with the Sigma rather than the Nikon. But if you sell the 18-55 and 55-200 they could go a ways toward paying for the cost of a used Nikon 24-70. <br />I currently used the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 70-200. They cover 90 percent of what I need.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the sigma 24-70/2.8 is $825, the nikon is $1900. the tamron 28-75 can be had used for as little as $250. you do the math. as an owner of both the nikon and the tamron, i'd have to say the nikon is better, but the tamron ain't bad, and is far away the best in terms of delivering bang for the buck. as andy mentioned, the most obvious difference in terms of IQ is sharpness at 2.8. the tamron is also far better as a walkaround lens due to its low weight. 28mm isnt particularly wide on DX, but you can add a wide prime for less than the price of a 24-70 and have two lenses which can switch between FX and DX. doubtful you'll get more than $300 for the 18-55/55-200. might make more sense to hold onto them as a lightweight kit.</p>

[mandymojica]

<p>Wow, thanks everyone I didn't expect so many awesome responses. I think I will be going with the Tamron 28-75 As stated by Eric and a few Others, I'm a Nikon baby, it's all I have ever shot with, and I love my Nikon Glass, but as finances are not peek I think this is my best option. But with hopes of getting turned over to all Nikon glass in the future. Awesome guys ! Thanks ! </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tamron makes sense because you can get it used for cheap, it's super sharp and contrasty from f/4 onward, and then you can save toward the nikon 24-70 while still having something decent in the meantime. i held on to my copy when i went FX, and though i don't use it often, lightweight, compact 2.8 zooms are good to have.</p>