bourboncowboy

<p>I recently faced the same decision. I bought a 2nd D700. I didn't need, nor did I want, the extra MPs. I know the camera like the back of my hand, so there would be no additional learning curve. I use an old Hyperdrive HD80 for transferring and storing my photos when I shoot weddings or events, so I don't need the dual card slots. And, like you said, the D700 does everything I need it to do.</p>

<p>It was a no-brainer for me.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your decision.</p>

<p>I don't know your lens lineup, but I wouldn't recommend this move if you're talking about moving to a D700. However, if you're moving to a D600 or D800, it might be a reasonable move - depending on the image size (megapixels) that either of those two cameras offer. If you can live with the pixel count in DX mode, it might not be such a bad idea until you can put together a decent FX lens lineup.</p>

<p>Previously, when I carried my lightweight/travel kit, it consisted of;</p>

<ul>

<li>D5100</li>

<li>Tamron 17-50</li>

<li>Sigma 50-150</li>

<li>Sigma 10-20</li>

<li>Sigma 30 1.4</li>

<li>SB-400</li>

</ul>

<p>That seems like a lot of gear, but it fits in a Lowepro Flipside 200 - which is fairly small. But sometimes I want to go much lighter. So I found a used Nikon P7000 at a good price. I read all the negative reviews, but took the chance on it anyway. I'm glad I did. IQ is outstanding, and the firmware update eliminated many of the problems addressed in the reviews. But the best part about the camera is that it uses the same cards, batteries, flash, and remote (ML-L3) as my D5100. I can now add the little P&S to my bag without needing room for additional accessories. It greatly expanded the versatility of my travel kit.</p>

<p>Normally, I just put the camera in Program mode and attach the flash for indoor shots. I know if I need something more specialized, I have the full lightweight kit and accompanying lenses nearby. I'm extremely impressed and happy with the little camera. It might be an option for you as well.</p>

<p>I've used the Nikon 17-35 and currently own the 14-24. Both are amazing lenses, but I've got a sleeper to recommend: the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. You can probably find one for $250-275 in excellent condition, and for indoor shooting, it will do all you ask. It's sharper than it should be for the price, and will also use the standard 77mm filters. Give it a shot, and if you don't like it, resell it. You'll definitely get your $$$ back.</p>

<p>If you're shooting people and events in low-light settings, get the D700. While I've never shot with the D7000, I have shot with the D300 and D90. They're fantastic in decent light, but they just don't cut it at ISO 4000. I consistently sell 8x10 prints at this setting.</p>

<p>I moved to FX a couple years ago, and it's the best move I've ever made. And yes, I'm a hobbyist - but I still sell a few prints.</p>

<p>*Pick up a used 17-55 (about $900). It's the best short tele lens available for a DX body.</p>

<p>*Pick up a used 70-200 - version 1...(about 1300).</p>

<p>*Pick up a NEW Sigma 30 1.4 - so you can have it calibrated if the focus is off.</p>

<p>*Upgrade your camera to the D90.</p>

<p>That should take care of your $3000.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keep the two you have. They're better performers - although not as convenient.</p>

<p>My first sports gig was in college for my photojournalism/sports journalism classes. I had an old F3 (that looked like it had been dragged through hell behind a truck) and three lenses: a 50 1.8 Series E, a 135 3.5 Series E, and a borrowed 200/4 Ai-S. I had to shoot a college football game for the classes. I burned through five 36-exposure rolls to get exactly 8 decent shots. Manually-focusing for an SEC football game wasn't easy...and film wasn't cheap (although I rolled my own). But that's where I got my start...and where I got my first newspaper publication.</p>

<p>You don't have to jump in credit card-deep at first. Get good at what you do, and then expand as you're able to afford better equipment.</p>

<p>Manual focusing is simple. The smaller, dim viewfinders on most DX cameras don't help. If you decide to try this, be sure to pick up a magnifying eyepiece. It'll help.</p>

<p>If I'm not mistaken, non-Ai lenses can be used on the D40/60/3000/5000 as well. They won't meter, but metering is an overrated option for a camera with a rear LCD. Besides, you can usually find a 50 1.4 non-Ai lens in really good shape for under $100. </p>

<p>For portrait photography, I'd go with a 24-70. On a cropped sensor, it's just about the perfect focal length. </p>

<p>I'll echo some of the ideas previously posted.</p>

<p>First, I'd take care of the long and wide ends. A Sigma 10-20 would be a good choice, and it's cheaper than the Nikon version. For the long end, I'd choose the 70-300VR. It's reasonably light and offers good image quality. If weight is a concern, you can go with the 55-200VR. IQ is almost as good, and it weighs quite a bit less.</p>

<p>You're original post didn't say that you wanted a macro lens. But if you do, look into the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro. It's a fantastic lens and a tremendous value.</p>

<p>The Nikon 35 1.8 would also be a great choice for a low light "normal" lens on DX. It's also small and very light.</p>

<p>For a wide-to-normal zoom, either the 18-55 or 18-70 offers great image quality in a relatively inexpensive package.</p>

<p>But here's the secret to keeping multiple small lenses in one bag. Get yourself <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583451-REG/OP_TECH_USA_1101221_Double_Lens_Mount_Cap.html">one of these gizmos </a>and attach two lenses together. It will save room in your bag and protect them from scratching each other. I've got a couple, and love them.</p>

<p>If you're not happy with the Tamron 17-50, sell it and pick up a good used copy of the 18-70 (for faster focusing) and a flash. Learn to bounce the flash, and you'll love the lens.</p>

<p>The 70-300 is hard to beat in size and price. I've never used the Tammy 70-200, so I can't comment on the lens - but a constant 2.8 aperture is always nice in a zoom.</p>

<p>Also look into a dedicated macro lens. I'll suggest the Tamron 90 2.8. I've got the older version (without the built-in motor) and I love it. Look around and you can find a bargain. I bought mine in like-new condition for $190. It also doubles as a wonderful portrait lens.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I had the Tamron 90 2.8 with the built-in motor, but I decided to sell it. That was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. The lens was simply wonderful. It was tack-sharp and worked beautifully with a (relatively cheap) Kenko 1.4DG teleconverter. I still can't explain my reasons for selling. <br>

After a brief period of seller's remorse, I began looking for a replacement. Since all my cameras were capable of focusing lenses without internal motors, I even searched for another Tamron that didn't have one. I lucked out and found an older version (no BIM) in mint condition for $190. This was one of the easiest decisions I've ever made. I've found that it focuses quicker than my previous, motorized version - and it's every bit as sharp. </p>

<p>As for the R1/R1C1 kits... I've owned two (the last being the R1 kit - since I already had the SU-800). I think I used each one twice...at the most. They're a pain to use and I found that they took too much joy out of my photography. However, I would like to pick up another SB-200 someday.</p>

<p>I've never owned the Sigma or Tamron versions, but I've owned all three Nikon versions. </p>

<p>I started with the "G" version. It wasn't bad up to 200mm. However, I found that the photos I got from it lacked contrast. Beyond 200mm, I found the lens to be a bit soft. </p>

<p>I moved to the AF-D version, and liked it. The contrast problem mostly disappeared, and the images were sharper up to about 250mm. Beyond that, the images were mostly soft if they were printed larger than 8x10.</p>

<p>I picked up the AF-S VR version a couple years ago. It produces images with excellent contrast and they're sharp. Not as sharp as the 70-200, but for the price difference, I can't complain. Most of the softness beyond 250mm is gone, but I think that a lot of that is due to the VR reducing camera shake - as I only use it hand-held.</p>

<p>If you've got the cash ready, I'd suggest going with the VR version. You obviously need the extra reach, and that means you probably need VR.</p>

<p>If you like the 28-105mm focal length, then pick up a D40/50/60/70/80/90 (used) and an 18-70 (also used). The focal length is roughly equivalent (on a DX camera) as your 28-105. You should be able to find any of these combos for $500 or less. If you want to add a second lens, I'd suggest that you should take a peek at a 70-300VR. It would make a great combination, and I think it would work on your film camera as well.</p>

<p>I've owned the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20. I sold them both. But if I still shot DX (such as the D5000), I'd get the Sigma. It's an amazing lens.</p>

<p>Maybe my definition of "cult status" differers from yours. But to me, my definition refers to something that is revered out of the mainstream.</p>

<p>In that sense, the D700 currently offers something that can't be had in other Nikon FX offerings: a compact chassis - with an optional grip. Until Nikon releases something similar, I think the D700 already has achieved cult status. Of course it will soon be dated, but that doesn't dimish its image-making capabilities.</p>

<p>Think about it in these terms: What's the smallest (and lightest) Nikon DSLR that will still autofocus screw-driven lenses? The D50. It achieved cult status for this reason, and slightly better high-ISO performance - at a lower price. Until the D90 appeared, it was the smallest camera in its class to do this. Now the D90 carries the mantle...and has/will achieve cult status. I personally don't think the D200 has ever achieved this status due to the banding issues (remember those problems?) and it's poor high-ISO performance. It was just a camera with a nice LCD, saturated colors, and well-placed controls.</p>

<p>But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.</p>

<p>You're shooting with a D3s and are asking that question???</p>

<p>I have the D700, but I still agree with you: I love to see my slides projected on a big screen. There's just nothing quite like it. Of course, most younger people don't understand...</p>

<p>As long as you're shooting in decent light, the D100 is a fantastic camera. The basic operations can be a bit quirky as compared to the newer DSLRs, but since you have no framework for comparison, I think you'll be happy. Enjoy your "new" camera.</p>

<p>There's some good advice posted above.</p>

<p>I agree with the 17-55 suggestion. It's a fantastic lens, and a perfect compliment to the 70-200. I had one and loved it until I was forced to sell it with my move to full frame.</p>

<p>Also, you should reconsider reading a book or two. Until you learn about the settings on your camera and their respective uses, you'll just be groping for the correct settings in every situation. Learning the basics is actually easier than you think - but you will have to put in a bit of time to tackle the learning curve. Just be careful: once you learn the basics, the thirst for more knowledge will be addicting.</p>

<p>From reading your brief interest resume, it doesn't seem as if you <em>need</em> a full frame camera. The biggest advantage of a full frame camera is the low-light capability. I don't see anything listed in your original post that would lead me to believe that a cropped sensor would fall short of fulfilling your needs.</p>

<p>I've got a full frame system that I use for paying gigs and other important shoots that require low light shooting. I've also got a ton of fast lenses that I use with it. However, 90% of my everyday photography work is done with an old D50 and two kit lenses. I can get similar results (in decent to good light) with the crop camera - and it's a lot more fun to use.</p>

<p>Another point you brought up is your reason for bypassing the D90. I think this is a serious mistake. The D90 offers the ability to autofocus lenses that don't have the AF-S motor in them. This is a <em><strong>big deal</strong></em>. It's also the reason that I still use the D50 instead of a D40 or D60. In a pinch, I can mount my 85 1.4 on the D50 and get spectacular results. I prefer it on the full frame camera because I've gotten used to the shift in depth of field (I shoot a lot of film as well.), but it performs extremely well on the D50. The D5000 is limited to AF-S only lenses (if you want autofocus), and that's a deal-breaker...to me. Keep this in mind when you make your purchase.</p>

<p>Another camera to consider is the D300. The reason I suggest this camera is because it offers metering ability with the older Ai and Ai-S lenses. I believe that metering on digital cameras is a bit overrated since you can chimp your shots. But then again, I've been shooting for over 20 years, so measuring light has become somewhat second nature to me. Just keep in mind that neither the D5000 nor the D90 will meter manual-focus lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p>Congrats on the "new" lens. I had this lens, sold it, and now I've got an old 135 2.8 Ai'd "K" lens. Here's my take:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>both lenses are exceptionally sharp;</li>

<li>the Ai-S lens is lighter with regard to weight;</li>

<li>the Ai'd lens has a longer focus throw which translates into easier focusing;</li>

<li>both cost me about $90 (I had to have my current lens converted) - so you got a deal.</li>

</ul>

<p>All in all, you should be happy with the lens. If you aren't, look into the "K" version. It's cheap, but you'll have to buy the conversion ring and probably have it converted. I found the seller "microbee" on ebay, and he did a wonderful job. I think I've got about $100, total, invested in the lens - which includes the ring and conversion.</p>

<p>Extreme III cards are fast and reliable. It's the only card I use in my cameras.</p>

<p><em>Which filter would you recomend on the Tamron lens for optimum results?</em><br>

The only filter you need is a circular polarizer. Get a B + W or a Hoya HMC. Skip the UV filters unless you're shooting in an environment in which the front lens element could be damaged or soiled - such as on the beach.</p>