# Practicality: Nikon 24-70mm vs. 70-200mm



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

I would like to hear from those of you who have either the Nikon 24-70mm or the 70-200mm. If you have both that's even better. 

I currently have a 12-24mm f/4, 18-200mm, and I just purchased a 35mm f/1.8 from Amazon. I would eventually like to have both lenses to cover the 12-200mm focal range (including my wide), however I would rather not spend $4k on glass in a single month. 

I am currently leaning more towards getting the 70-200 first, but would like to hear from those of you who have either lens, which do you use most often and think is more practical? I love to shoot landscape and wildlife, so it almost seems like a no-brainer to get the 70-200. Either way I need to get some sharper/faster glass in my arsenal.

Thanks!


----------



## Newcastle Shooter (Apr 14, 2010)

Hey Josh!

I have the 70-200mm 2.8 - and love it. I also had the same debate with myself. I also have a 12-24 and a 50mm 1.4 and as i needed the extra high speed reach it was easy for me to say 70-200mm. Its very rarely off f2.8 as i shoot weddings and events mostly and the low light requires it. 

I love my 50mm 1.4 and for the moment i just use me legs a bit more  but intend to get the 24-70 maybe - not urgent at the moment.

Cheers.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 14, 2010)

do the 50 1.4 and 70-200. Than you'll have your super wide, 12-24, your fast normal, 35 1.8, fast short tele, 50 1.4, and the telephoto 70-200. Seems pretty ideal to me.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

Thanks guys. 

I'm not sure if I will ever spend the $$ on the 50mm since I just got the 35mm; should be here tomorrow or Friday. The 35mm is much crisper than the 50mm 1.8 and the 1.4 is pretty pricey. Enough so that I would just put that money towards the 24-70 when I wanted the next lens. 

I think I will be getting the 70-200 next; hopefully in the next month or two (if I can wait that long). 

But then another dilemma arises... Do I get the old VR I or the new VR II?


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 14, 2010)

I'd go with the older vrI.  I havent seen anywhere that the new version will allow you to slow down your shutter speeds (more than the four stops associated with the vrI).  It would make sense to get the "older" model, because it will be cheaper, and it is still a flawless lens.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

D-B-J said:


> I'd go with the older vrI.  I havent seen anywhere that the new version will allow you to slow down your shutter speeds (more than the four stops associated with the vrI).  It would make sense to get the "older" model, because it will be cheaper, and it is still a flawless lens.



They are only $300 apart in price unless I purchased a used one. I have serious issues with buying used lenses. Something about it doesn't sit well with me. Like they have been violated... I almost purchased one yesterday, even sent the payment via PayPal. When he was supposed to be shipping it, he got a last minute PM from someone willing to pay his original asking price ($15 more than what we agreed on) so he refunded my money without another word and sold it to him instead. All in all I am glad he was a total ass-hat who went back on the agreement we had, and I am just glad I got my money back without it being a hassle. When someone goes back on their word, it says a lot about a man, or lack thereof. 

It was the 35mm 1.8; I ordered it on Amazon late last night. 

If I am already $2k deep, what's another $300? I would just like to hear more personal experiences with the new VRII. I have raided YouTube and every thread that came up in searches on here. Still hard to find any solid info or comparisons between the two.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 14, 2010)

^^yeah iknow, its hard to find a direct comparison between the two.  And the extra 300 dollars is an extra sb600


----------



## SpeedTrap (Apr 14, 2010)

I shoot with both of them, but I have to say that the 2-70 is what is on my camera 75% of the time.
I love them both and they both have there place, but I would take the 24-70 over the 70-200 only if I knew my next lens after it would be the 70-200.


----------



## TJ K (Apr 14, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go with the older vrI.  I havent seen anywhere that the new version will allow you to slow down your shutter speeds (more than the four stops associated with the vrI).  It would make sense to get the "older" model, because it will be cheaper, and it is still a flawless lens.
> ...



Well the vrII has its fair share of problems. It is a lot shorter in focal length than the VRI was and also is having problems of the paint chipping off in the front filter threads. Most people prefer their VRI over the newer model.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

SpeedTrap said:


> I shoot with both of them, but I have to say that the 2-70 is what is on my camera 75% of the time.
> I love them both and they both have there place, but I would take the 24-70 over the 70-200 only if I knew my next lens after it would be the 70-200.



I've got a 18-200 and a 35mm, but I have nothing fast for a zoom. The 18-200 is a great lens, but it's not something I could use for wildlife. To me, I think I have the mid range better covered than the telephoto. That being said, you still believe the 24-70 would be a better choice? 

I will be going to Hawaii this Summer so whichever lens I choose will be coming along with me there as well. 

Perhaps the only solution is to just order them both...


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

TJ K said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...



I read up on the focal length. The VrI was able to achieve 180-190 but the new VRII can only achieve 140-165 at close distances. 

However, I have also read that the difference in image sharpness by far makes up for this fallback.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2010)

Here is a thorough review that features a side-by-side comparison with images from the version I and the newer model 70-200/2.8 lens, showing the difference in image magnification at different focal lengths and distances. 70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Here is a thorough review that features a side-by-side comparison with images from the version I and the newer model 70-200/2.8 lens, showing the difference in image magnification at different focal lengths and distances. 70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan



Exactly what I wanted to see.  

Looks like on a FX it's worth the difference, but on a DX the difference is slim except for the achieved focal length. 

If they still have them on stock when I make the purchase, I may just get the VRI and save the few hundred, unless anyone disagrees with this decision for use on a D300? 

Thank you!


----------



## sleist (Apr 14, 2010)

I have the 70-200 VR1 on a D90 (same sensor as your D300).

Love the lens (VR1 is fine unless you plan on moving to FX soon), but I'm not sure it would be my first choice if I shot mainly landscapes.  Wildlife is OK, but you might be frustrated by the reach.  Suppose it depends on the wildlife.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

sleist said:


> I have the 70-200 VR1 on a D90 (same sensor as your D300).
> 
> Love the lens (VR1 is fine unless you plan on moving to FX soon), but I'm not sure it would be my first choice if I shot mainly landscapes.  Wildlife is OK, but you might be frustrated by the reach.  Suppose it depends on the wildlife.



I plan on using a teleconverter with it. No plans to spend $7k on a 200-400mm yet. 

I may go to a D700 (or it's replacement) some day, but probably not in the very near future.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 14, 2010)

wow. the difference on the corners of the old and the new are pretty big... thanks derrel!


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 14, 2010)

D-B-J said:


> wow. the difference on the corners of the old and the new are pretty big... thanks derrel!



Only for FX bodies. DX bodies have a slight difference, but not much.


----------



## itznfb (Apr 14, 2010)

I have the 70-200 vr1. VR on the 70-200 is 3 stop, not 4 stop as someone said earlier. I recently purchased a 24-70mm and a D3s. I have yet to use the 24-70mm outside of playing around with it when I got it. Also I have no issue with the 70-200 vr1 on the D3s. Definitely wouldn't trade it for the vr2.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 15, 2010)

itznfb said:


> I have the 70-200 vr1. VR on the 70-200 is 3 stop, not 4 stop as someone said earlier. I recently purchased a 24-70mm and a D3s. I have yet to use the 24-70mm outside of playing around with it when I got it. Also I have no issue with the 70-200 vr1 on the D3s. Definitely wouldn't trade it for the vr2.



I would definitely not upgrade if I already had the VRI but since I am buying new and the difference is only $300 the decision is a bit harder. 

I may still get the VRII just in case I ever do go to a FX body and because it's the newer improved model. Since most of its use will be for wildlife and day-to-day use, the fact that it has a slightly shorter focal length at short distances doesn't mean much. I can take a step or two closer if I am taking portraits. For objects further away the focal length is nearly the same (196 vs. 192 I believe).

I am going to swing by my local store and see how it looks/feels in person. It's been a while since I handled a VR-I but it will still give me a better idea.


----------



## Ryvax (Apr 15, 2010)

I'd say go with the VR2.  It's a lens you'll probably have for 10 years + if you take care of it and you'll probably regret it not going for the 2 when you move up to FX.  I just picked up the 24 to 70 a few weeks ago for my D90 and I love it.  teh 70 to 200 is the next on my list.


----------



## cnutco (Apr 15, 2010)

Go ahead and get the VRII!  It is pretty hard to find tyhe VRI.  Like he^ said, you will have this lens for many years and if you ever plan to go FX one day like I do then you wil be ready.

I have talked to many people about the two lenses like you are doing now and I decided to get the 70 - 200 first over the 24 - 70.  The main reason I was wanting to get the 70 - 200 is for my daughter's sports and a lot of people have told me that they use the 70 - 200 90% when taking portraits.  So there you go.

After I sell my 18 - 200, I will get the 24 - 70.

You are right... dropping 4K at one time for two lenses if rough.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 15, 2010)

B&H still sells both so it's easy enough to attain, but I have decided to get the new one. Might as well. Now I just have to muster up the courage to click place order on that bad boy and decide if I should get the 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter with it. 

I hadn't even thought about selling my 18-200 to get either lens. Maybe when I get the 24-70 I will consider doing that but I may just keep it. The price of the 24-70 is much easier to accept.


----------



## RONDAL (Apr 16, 2010)

on the question of 24-70 vs 70-200 it dpeends what you are shooting, but my 24-70 is on my camera 80% of the time.  the 70-200 is a chore to lug around, and you really do lose out on short distance stuff with it.  the 24-70 is like a walka round lens on steroids.

as for whether VR1 or VR2.  The issues witht he Vr2 would make me stay away from it.  plus the VR1 was a workhorse and still is for MANY pros regardless of the softness in the corners issue.

you can still find the VR1 new ( i did) for about $500 cheaper than the VR2


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2010)

RONDAL said:


> on the question of 24-70 vs 70-200 it dpeends what you are shooting, but my 24-70 is on my camera 80% of the time.  the 70-200 is a chore to lug around, and you really do lose out on short distance stuff with it.  the 24-70 is like a walka round lens on steroids.
> 
> as for whether VR1 or VR2.  The issues witht he Vr2 would make me stay away from it.  plus the VR1 was a workhorse and still is for MANY pros regardless of the softness in the corners issue.
> 
> you can still find the VR1 new ( i did) for about $500 cheaper than the VR2



So far the best I found was $350 cheaper. I think if it's something that I am going to invest in and plan to have for 5-10 years I may as well get the newer model. Many VRI owners are not upgrading to the VRII. If I have the VRII I may not need to upgrade to their next model in 5 or so years. 

I am still rigorously researching both models, as well as the 24-70. The plan is to get the 70-200 first since I have a 35mm coming tomorrow, but the 24-70 may be much more useful for my upcoming trip to Hawaii. 

Buying both seems to be the best option 

Do you find that the 24-70 is not long enough or wide enough, or does it work pretty well overall? I have a 18-200 so I like having a good walk-around lens that I can always count on. I may sell it when I get the 24-70.


----------



## Ryvax (Apr 16, 2010)

Well, on my D90 my 24 to 70 is a 35 to 105.  It's a pretty good range for everything exept animals or far away things like planes and such.  You might miss the extra 100mm you get from your 18 to 200 untill you realize that you can usually just walk closer,  lol.  I find the lens amazing tho.  I love how the lens hood actually locks.  You won't be dissapointed.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2010)

Ryvax said:


> Well, on my D90 my 24 to 70 is a 35 to 105.  It's a pretty good range for everything exept animals or far away things like planes and such.  You might miss the extra 100mm you get from your 18 to 200 untill you realize that you can usually just walk closer,  lol.  I find the lens amazing tho.  I love how the lens hood actually locks.  You won't be dissapointed.



Thanks,
I don't think I will miss the reach since I will have the 70-200 with a 1.7 teleconverter. 

How is it's sharpness?

I will probably get the 70-200 first because I have wanted it for a few years, just never got around to seriously consider purchasing one. But I fear that I will have the 24-70 within a month afterwards to have it for my trip to Hawaii. 

Especially when I have a lens I can sell to help justify the expense to myself :mrgreen:


----------



## RONDAL (Apr 16, 2010)

i couldnt decide which one i wanted more so i bought both withina  week as well.....

you're gonna miss the versatility of the 18-200 no question.  you will also miss the weight of it if you are travelling.  i still believe there is still not a better travel lens than the 18-200mm.  

the IQ of the 24-70 is unreal.  it is so bloody sharp its amazing.  you will find you will use your 50mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.8 a lot less as those are usually the sharpest lenses in peoples bags starting out, but the 24-70 is almost as sharp, if not as sharp.

The tele is nice, just be aware if you are putting this on a D90 and below (any plastic body nikon) the 70-200mm is a HEAVY, and the body isn't as strong as the d300/d700 bodies.   I have read stories on here of lenses pulling the connector ring out of the body itself due tot he weight.  The tele just makes the problem worse as its more weight and more length on the joint.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2010)

RONDAL said:


> i couldnt decide which one i wanted more so i bought both withina  week as well.....
> 
> you're gonna miss the versatility of the 18-200 no question.  you will also miss the weight of it if you are travelling.  i still believe there is still not a better travel lens than the 18-200mm.
> 
> ...



Great info. 

I have a gripped D300 to offset the weight, so I'll be ok :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2010)

I need to plan out if I will be purchasing both lenses before my Hawaii trip. If I purchase both, it really does not matter. But if I only get one between now and June, I am beginning to wonder if the 24-70mm would be better to take along on the trip. I leave June 31st. 

For my normal shooting, the 70-200 would be more beneficial to get first based on the rest of my gear, but Hawaii will be something I want to capture as best as I can. I haven't been there in a few years and I don't know when I will go back because my girlfriend and I have a long lost of places to visit.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 17, 2010)

I played around with both for a little bit today at Samy's Camera and I am still at a loss for which to get. I think the 24-70 would be much better for my trip to Hawaii as a walk-around lens but wouldn't be very helpful for any wildlife. I really want to get some shots of the gecko's there. On the other hand the 70-200 would be no fun to carry for very long distances. 

After handling them both in person I am leaning towards the 24-70 first, then getting the 70-200 later, possibly still before the trip. I still have 2 1/2 months until we leave to decide.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 17, 2010)

I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 (quite a bit cheaper than the 70-200, but an excellent lens)

The 24-70 is my primary lens and it's on my camera almost constantly.  I only use the 80-200 for special situations.

That said, it probably depends on what you shoot most.  If you tend to shoot things further away you're probably going to want the 70-200 more.


----------



## cnutco (Apr 17, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> I played around with both for a little bit today at Samy's Camera and I am still at a loss for which to get. I think the 24-70 would be much better for my trip to Hawaii as a walk-around lens but wouldn't be very helpful for any wildlife. I really want to get some shots of the gecko's there. On the other hand the 70-200 would be no fun to carry for very long distances.
> 
> After handling them both in person I am leaning towards the 24-70 first, then getting the 70-200 later, possibly still before the trip. I still have 2 1/2 months until we leave to decide.



I have really enjoyed my 70 - 200.  This plan of yours sounds just like mine.  Do you shot sports?  The main reason I went with the 70 -200 first is to shoot pics of my daughter playing sports.  I had the first portrait type of shots yesterday and I used the 70 - 200.  It worked just fine but I really had a few shots that I wanted the 24 -70 or wider.

I will post up some pics later for color C&C from those calibrated monitor people.

You will not regret getting that or the other lens.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't shoot any sports yet. The only thing the 70-200 would be used for is wildlife for the most part. 

As I talk to you guys I begin to lean more and more towards the 24-70 first, then to get the 70-200 in a month or two. 

It seems like a much better walk-around lens to keep on the camera most of the time.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 18, 2010)

I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 18, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.


 
I do ok with the 80-200 at my daughter's dance recitals without the teleconverter and we're probably 75' away from the stage.  No close-ups at that range, mind you...


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 18, 2010)

manaheim said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.
> ...



I'm thinking further away than that. When I graduated there we did it in a small outdoor amphitheater which we referred to as the "bowl" (due to it's shape). There are probably close to or over a thousand people in her graduating class so they will fill up quite a few rows in front, then everyone fills in behind that. Unless I get there 3 or 4 hours early, I doubt I will be extremely close. 

The teleconverter goes hand in hand with the 70-200 for me, so if I break down and get the lens, I can come to terms with a few hundred more. 

It just makes it so hard to prioritize which lens I need more over the next few months. Every time I find something to tip the scales in one direction, I end up with something that evens them back out again. 

I know... poor me, right?


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 21, 2010)

I just placed my order through B&H for the 24-70.  Excuse me while I go throw up. 

Hope it's worth it!

70-200 VRII will be next along with a teleconverter. Then I will see if the D700 replacement is due to be released. If not, I will get a macro to hold me over until then. Looking at the 105mm f/2.8.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 21, 2010)

When I'm at an event or shooting somewhere that I'm not sure what focal length will be needed, I like to double-fist it with the 24-70mm on the D700 with the Black Rapid strap & have the 70-200mm on the D300 with mono support. I have the VRI version of the 70-200mm and don't have any reason to upgrade to the VRII.





 


You won't go wrong with either lens, but I get much more daily use out of the 24-70mm. Although I wouldn't take anything for the 70-200mm (well... I do have a price in mind....), it is a bit of a boat anchor and does tend to draw attention.

BTW, the 105mm f/2.8 is an awesome piece of glass. :thumbsup:


*DISCLAIMER FOR THE ASTUTE OBSERVER:*
You're absolutely correct. That's not the 70-200mm on the monopod. It's a 300mm f/4 and a 1.7TC attached.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 23, 2010)

Lens pr0n:


----------



## brianT (Apr 24, 2010)

Nice lens.  This is the exact lens I want.  I was in the same predicament as you last year (deciding between the 24-70 or 70-200).  I bought the 70-200mm VRII first.  But I think overall the 24-70 would generally be more useful.

I'm accustomed to using my 18-105 lens on my D90.  That lens has a pretty good range.  So I fear that when upgrading to the 24-70 on a D90, I'll lose too much wide FOV.

Because you're using a D300 let us know how the FOV range of the 24-70 'feels' on a 1.5 sensor.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 24, 2010)

I started a review thread for the 24-70:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-reviews/201380-nikon-24-70mm-f-2-8-lens.html

Here's a better shot of it (more pics in link above).


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 26, 2010)

Is anyone shooting the 70-200 on a FX body? Does it have enough reach on it?

I would like to get the new D700 (D700s, D700x, D800) when it comes out since it will likely be this year. What I am wondering is if I should sell the D300 at that point, or if I should keep it for when I need that added reach without dropping to 6MP or whatever the D700 drops to in DX mode. The 24-70 will definitely shine on the FX body but I am unsure about the 70-200.


----------



## brianT (Apr 26, 2010)

> Is anyone shooting the 70-200 on a FX body? Does it have enough reach on it?
> 
> I would like to get the new D700 (D700s, D700x, D800) when it comes out since it will likely be this year. What I am wondering is if I should sell the D300 at that point, or if I should keep it for when I need that added reach without dropping to 6MP or whatever the D700 drops to in DX mode. The 24-70 will definitely shine on the FX body but I am unsure about the 70-200.


I guess I have the same plan as you, except in different lens order.  That is, I plan on getting the updated D700 or whatever they call it.  Plus I'm getting the 24-70 f/2.8.

My 70-200mm on my D90 works well, but regarding reach well I guess it depends on what you need it for.  Even with the crop sensor the 70-200mm is not enough magnification for birds.  I haven't used it on an FX camera, but I suspect it will be nearly useless for birds and wildlife.  Would be perfect for portraits and as a general walk-around lens I think.

Seems a lot of people buy teleconverters for the 70-200mm.  However, the loss of image quality and stops of light are big penalties with teleconverters.  I was thinking about getting one for my 70-200mm, but once I upgrade to FX format I think even a teleconverter won't be enough.  Therefore, I'm going to get a high magnification prime lens, which I think will provide better image quality and faster focus.

On FX the 70-200mm will be good for everything except wide shots.

I'll probably sell my D90 body to help fund the purchase of the new camera body. Even though it would be useful to have two bodies (one of them 1.5X DX) I'm the kind of person that would rarely use it if I have a better camera, like a D700.  Photography is a hobby only for me, so I don't really need to walk around with two cameras like the pros.

I'm hoping the new D700 has a higher Megapixel count.  Maybe they'll sell a 24 MP version


----------



## Josh220 (May 19, 2010)

Well... I am starting to consider the 70-200 now. I know it hasn't been that long since I got the 24-70 and haven't even fully broken it in properly due to class/work. My trip to Hawaii at the end of June is a factor; gotta get those geckos! 

It's hard for me to justify a $2300 lens which will lead to a $400 teleconverter at my age, when so many people I know are struggling to make rent. I feel selfish... I absolutely refuse to get the 70-300 or 80-200 though. 

I am also planning on picking up a Nikon 105mm Macro which I will have to fit into the purchase plans.


----------



## shivaswrath (May 20, 2010)

I have both the VR2 70-200 and 24-70 on a D90 (used to have a D200, but couldn't resist a better sensor for the loss of some minor things) . . .

-70-200 VR2 is on my D90 almost 85% of the time when I am shooting couples or outdoor events; it's sharp wide open, enables nice distance from my subject so they are comfortable, and the VR is noticeably improving my keepers on the long end.
-24-70 is for more indoor shooting, weddings, etc.; I tend to use it as often unless i Have my SB900 on, as without VR in low light situations, I would be cranking up the ISO and losing DR.

If I were you, and you're tight on $$, go for the 70-200 esp if you're into wildlife photography.


----------



## Josh220 (May 21, 2010)

shivaswrath said:


> I have both the VR2 70-200 and 24-70 on a D90 (used to have a D200, but couldn't resist a better sensor for the loss of some minor things) . . .
> 
> -70-200 VR2 is on my D90 almost 85% of the time when I am shooting couples or outdoor events; it's sharp wide open, enables nice distance from my subject so they are comfortable, and the VR is noticeably improving my keepers on the long end.
> -24-70 is for more indoor shooting, weddings, etc.; I tend to use it as often unless i Have my SB900 on, as without VR in low light situations, I would be cranking up the ISO and losing DR.
> ...



Good info, but I already have the 24-70. I purchased it last month. 

Just trying to decide if I should fork out the money for the 70-200 now.


----------



## Josh220 (Jul 11, 2010)

Update:

I rented the 70-200 VR2 for a week (due to my girlfriends graduation) and it is one hell of a lens. However, I cannot justify the $2400 for it right now, it just wasn't THAT amazing and it is heavy as hell. Even with a teleconverter and a cropped sensor, it doesn't have a huge amount of reach. 

On that note, I am finding the 24-70 to be a little restricting on my D300, and have begun considering an upgrade to a D700 so I can open up my FOV to a more convenient range, as well as get a better wide angle (which is currently my favorite range). I am looking at either the 14-24 or the 17-35. (I know the 14-24 is part of the holy trinity but the lack of filters is a huge disadvantage). 

I have noticed their sudden backorder though, and I am beginning to wonder if the supplies have been cut in anticipation of an upgrade? The last thing I want is to find a D700, then have a new model released shortly after.


----------

