petr_klapper

<p>Hi Lisa, until you decide, you can use your 17-55 in FX mode on D700 from around 28-29mm (without the lenshood) to 55mm with just a reasonable vignetting and slightly softer corners (which should not matter that much I guess anyway). Just turn off the Auto DX cropping in the menu and give it a try.<br>

More info:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj</a><br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/690536">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/690536</a></p>

 

<p>Hi Filip,<br>

for shooting parties and people, the 14-24 is mostly good as an additional lens (to "spice it up"), but I wouldn't use it as a main lens, 24mm is too short. 17-35 on the other side is a great combination between 14-24 and 24-70 - it's almost as wide for crowd/interior/creative DJ shots and and 35mm on the other side is the right focal length for "serious" people/small groups photos. And since you'll have 50&70-200, you're covered. The downside to the 17-35 is that it's not as sharp as newer 14-24/24-70 wide open (that's why I don't have it), but it should be still ok for a party. Sometimes, when I'm a bit "lazy" to take 14-24-70 and/or going to darker club, I have just 35/1.8DX (+14-24 for a few shots) - even though it vignettes on FX, it's plenty sharp in the frame where it matters, darker corners look ok and it gives the flexibility to shoot one EV lower when you don't shoot more than 2 people at once (for groups shots I'd go up to f/4 depending on how many people in the scene).<br>

Good luck ! :)<br>

Petr Klapper</p>

<p>You should probably specify more what glass "exactly" you might need for you children photography business - if it's 85mm (which on FX is basically your 50mm you have on DX), or shorter/longer or zoom ? Why do you even want something better than D50 ?<br>

I probably would not spend $1000 on 85/1.4 - it's about 60% of Nikon 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8, both of them with probably much higher business value than another $700+.<br>

If 85mm is ok for you to start, get D700 and 85/1.8 and then just save for the 24-70 or 70-200.<br>

If you need great range to cover right now, get Nikon 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8, it will work ok on D50 and save for D700. Even though DX is not dead, just skip it at this point, if you "mean business".</p>

<p>I'd use 24-70/2.8 as a main wedding lens on D300 body and other wider lens only as needed (any brand 10/11/12-16/20/24 will do, Tokina 11-16/2.8 being the favorite). For most situations (since you don't want to distort people anyway at wedding) you don't need wider than 24mm and with 70mm you'll cover most of the portraits on DX without switching and carrying another lens. And it's much better lens than 17-55/2.8 which has worse bokeh and is not that sharp).</p>

<p>As I see it, the obvious is that you need something much wider than 50mm for landscapes and something considerably longer for portraits. You haven't mentioned why the 14-24 was not working for you, which might be key information for what to buy for landscapes - 17-35 seems as a good bet, but maybe you don't like/need that wide and 24-70 would be wide enough for you.<br>

As for portrait glass, on FX the 70mm is not enough for tighter (head)shots and I'd skip the 85mm completely, picking lens around 105mm - some of the 105mm macros or Nikon 105/2 DC which is a great lens.<br>

Basically the 24-70 is a great lens, but it's not the best for landscapes and portraits. It's a great party/event lens, for basic walkaround, etc., but there's a reason many photographers skip this range almost completely, having only 50/1.4/1.8 if needed in the middle.</p>

<p>24-70/2.8 is as good as it gets. If too big/heavy/expensive, consider 24-85/2.8-4.</p>