# I'm buying a D700, I think, and need lens advice



## Naturegirl (Aug 3, 2009)

I've searched this & a zillion other places and my eyes feel like they're going to pop out of my head and I'm tired of searching & reading reviews. I want one nice clean pretty thread to come & read opinions, so please humor me 

I have a D80, have had it for 2 years or so now. It's served it's purpose and I'm way past ready to upgrade. I'm pretty set on the D700. I need advice on lenses. From what I've read, it seems to me that Tamron & Sigma make some really good quality lenses, but the issue with those seems to be the quality of the specific lens you get.....rather, sometimes one can get a crappy copy, or two, or three. But all in all, if you have a good copy it can be just as good as it's Nikon model.

So, I don't feel it necessary to stick soley with Nikon lenses, and it would be better if I didn't have to as I'd rather have more lens for the $$. If I get Nikon it will probably just be one right now, but with a Sig/Tam I could possibly get two. 

So my questions. If I buy one lens to go with this, which one should it be? I am doing mostly portraits, but also weddings....and not very large weddings either. In my research, I've found the Nikon 24-70 to be popular but super pricey. So, could I get the Sigma/Tamron version of this? Could I possibly get the 28-75 (I think it was the Tamron that I read good reviews of) and use that for the weddings? 

What about the 70-200? I've read very mixed things about this one. And it seems the Sigma version gets better feedback than the Tamron version. And I've also read that some people don't like the 70-200 on the D700. 

Also, if I were to get two lenses, what would be a good combo? 

And, can I use my 50mm f1.8 on the D700? I'm sure I read that I can.

It's all very confusing and I'm sure the responses here will probably make me just want to write all the lenses down on a piece of paper and close my eyes & point....or pick out of a hat or something. 

Help


----------



## blash (Aug 3, 2009)

Buy good glass before buying good bodies. The D700 is a nice body but in several years it'll be worth less than half of what it's worth now. It's definitely an upgrade from a D80 but not about $2,000 (about what you'd pay for a D700 minus money received from selling your D80) IMO. The D80 can give a pretty nice image given the right lens, exposure, and skill of the photographer looking through the viewfinder.

If you have the money for both a D700 and a pro-zoom (i.e. $1800 for a 70-200), instead think about getting 2 pro-zooms. The 24-70 fetches about the same price as the 70-200 - so if I were you, I'd buy the 24-70 now, and put in a pre-order for the new 70-200 that will start to ship in November. Why the new one instead of the older, $500 cheaper one? Because eventually you will upgrade to full-frame, and the new 70-200 will suit you better with better sharpness in the corners.

Standard progression in photography - first buy a mid-level amateur body (i.e. D80, D90, D200), then buy a fast prime to hold you over once you realize the limitations of the kit lens (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8), then save up and buy the Holy Trinity of Nikon Glass over time (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), then buy specialized glass (i.e. fisheyes). Progress may be hampered by decisions to purchase glass like the Cream Machine (85mm f/1.4), a macro lens (105mm f/2.8 VR), or defocus control glass (105mm/135mm DC), depending on what you find out you like to shoot.


----------



## KmH (Aug 3, 2009)

^^^ +1.


----------



## Dao (Aug 3, 2009)

+1 :thumbup:


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 3, 2009)

That totally makes sense, however, I also know that when one feels limited by the capabilities of their camera, it's time to upgrade.  I could always do the D300 but I'm being drawn in by the ISO capabilities of the D700.  Being that I'd like to do more weddings wouldn't it be a strong investment?  

I wouldn't be getting rid of the D80 as I'd want it for back up and to use at home for snapshots, vacations, etc.


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 3, 2009)

I would absolutely hold off on the D700.  I would really suggest you get some nice fast glass to go with your D80.  I would take the D700 money and go with 2 new fast zooms.  24-70, and 70-200.  They don't necessarily have to be Nikon's.

Having a new body and same lenses you will not notice that much of a difference in the end result.  In your sig you list just 2 lenses.  The wide kit and 50mm.  I really think you need more lens coverage before a new body.  And with fast glass it's like your getting the better ISO speeds of the D700 becasue the new lenses will give you 2 stops more light over your current zoom lens.

Buy some new glass and use them while you wait for the D800 to come out.  :thumbup:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 3, 2009)

She wants a new camera and needs suggestions on glass.

Get the D700 if you want, it's a sweet body and your money!



Side note:
I don't have a D700 so I can't comment on what lenses to recommend... but I have had a D80 and can feel your pain with the high ISO performance of it. I now shoot with a D90 and couldn't be happier, a D300 or D700 just wasn't in the cards for me since I don't make any money at it.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2009)

As an experienced 'people shooter', I understand the allure of a D700. Full-frame lens coverage, awesome autofocusing, excellent viewfinder image,built-in flash for emergency fill and triggering of off-camera flash units,and the greater lens selection that FF brings.
I would strongly disagree with those suggesting a crop-body camera for social photography/wedding work,and if you shop around you can find a D700 for $2,400 or therabouts. If you get a D700, you'll be able to use an 85mm lens from only 20 feet away to photograph a six foot tall person; with a 1.5x camera, you must be roughly 32 feet away to get the same field of view (8.47 feet high). For serious wedding/social photography, FF capture is much easier to do,and with a lot less ugly background in focus when stopped down to flash apertures of f/4.5 to f/8.

Lens-wise, you might want to look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8; it's got very good optics,and it's light weight,and affordable. It offers 90% of the performance of the 24-70,and is the *only* 3rd party lens I could suggest for wedding use with a FF body. This lens is well-proven, but DO conduct some testing when you buy a new lens. Decentered elements are fairly common, leading to off-kilter resolution often on one side of the frame. At the pice of this, you could buy what? Five of them for the cost of the 24-70??

A second suggestion would be a used 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S. There are loads of these on the used market. Like the 24-70, this is a large,heavy, massive lens,built for image quality more than compactness and light weight design.

I'm not sure if you're aware that the 70-200VR, the original, is not "all that" on full-frame, but the replacement design announced this week will cost $2,499. I could not live without a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but I think Nikon has as many as five new lens announcements for this year,according to what I read elsewhere, and I would HOPE Nikon will imitate Canon and produce something closer to an all-in-one lens like a 24-105mm f/4 or f/3.5 lens, to compete with Canon's 24-105 f/4 L, so you could hold off on the 70-200,and maybe make due with a used 85mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D Nikkor,which on FF,is a very,very useful low-light lens for a very reasonable amount of money.

Again, a FF body will open a lot of lens doors up; like the way that on FF only the 28-70 AF-S or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 both are wide-normal-short telephoto lenses. On APS-C, both of those fine lenses are crippled on the wide end,and not what they were *designed* to be. By going to FF, with the D700, you'll also get pro AF and killer High ISO. I would suggest you move to the D700 and not worry too much about lenses beyond your bread-and-butter everyday zoom lens.


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 3, 2009)

Thank you all, for taking the time to respond.

First, I do know how important lens is, rather than the camera. I know my camera isn't all that bad. And with my 50mm I get some really amazing shots. I actually shot an entire wedding with it and it turned out nice. However, I did struggle somewhat in the church and see where the limitations in lens & ISO come into play. Which is why I really want to upgrade to the D700. And I thought about the D300, but it still doesn't seem to deliver the quality in ISO that the D700 does. And at some point, of course I know I would upgrade to full frame, so why not do it now and get myself set up where I'm comfortable walking into any situation? I shoot in mostly natural light (using my SB-600 on occasion) so the ISO will certainly be beneficial.

And sure, in a few years the D700 will be worth way less than it is now, but isn't that how it always is? A camera comes out, it's pricey and then a year or two something else takes it's place and the cost comes down, and then the same thing happens to that one in another year or two. 

So, yeah, I'm just as confused as I was to begin with  

I'm also glad to get some feedback on the Tamron. I think that would be sufficient for the wedding I'm shooting. It's not a large one. I know it's not going to be as perfect as the Nikon, but it's certainly better than what I have....especially if I pair it with the D700.

And yes, I've read about the 70-200mm. I'm not sure what else I'll end up going with but I think I'll hold off on this one for now. I've read a bit on the 80-200mm but it doesn't seem that as many people are using that one.

Please keep the feedback coming...........


----------



## itznfb (Aug 3, 2009)

depends on what kind of shooting you do. i do primarily zoo and wildlife. therefore buying a D700 would be a step back from my D90. now that the D300s is out it is really the only viable upgrade for me. ISO performance is no better in the D700 than the D300s. unless somehow the D300s took a step backward from the D300.


----------



## Moe (Aug 3, 2009)

I have a D40, so I feel your pain on the ISO. I'm not sure how much of a hurry you're in, but how about this. You are pretty much set on the D700, which means other than the 50 1.8, you are going to need a new lens(es). If I were you, I would decide on the lens you want for the D700 and buy that first. Give it a while on you're D80 and see if that can buy you some time and perhaps let the D700x/800/whatever come out and the price go down on the D700 (keeping in mind that once you see what those cameras can do, you'll want one of them.) To be honest, from my research I doubt the price on a new 700 will go down very much, but there will be more used D700's on the market. This plan would allow a couple more paychecks to come in before dropping the 2 G's on the D700. I am suggesting this because I am currently on this plan. I had the kit lens, then ended up getting a Sigma 18-50 2.8 which has put off a camera upgrade. The only flaw in my purchase is the one I got isn't compatible with FF, but I wasn't thinking that far ahead at the time. Live and learn. 

Just one of the many opinions you'll hear.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 3, 2009)

also... the 70-200mm was the best photographic purchase i've made to date. the only time it leaves my D90 is when i'm throwing the teleconverter on it

i've also used it with the D700 and D3 and the vignetting is no where near as bad as some people like to make it out to be. easily corrected in PS with 1 or 2 notches to the left


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 4, 2009)

after reading more  I'm thinking Sigma 18-50mm 2.8....and generously giving my kit away . IF I keep the D80 for a bit longer, this is closer to wide than the 24 or 28 would be. And I think it would suffice. And if I do this, I could still opt for a longer zoom now too. But then lies another quesion. If the 70-200 isn't good on the D700 I don't want to bother getting it, even if it would be good on my D80 and I could sell it at some point. What about the Tamron & Sigma copies of the 70-200? And how would they work on the D700 and on my D80?  Or the 80-200mm Nikon?

Whatever I get, it has to be :thumbup: on the D700 as well as my D80. I am getting the D700 at some point, but would be willing to hold off on it for the time being. The wedding I have in October is outdoor, and while the reception is indoor, I do have the sb600 and am comfortable with that. And I might not end up doing another wedding til the spring.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 4, 2009)

i would still get the 70-200mm. i shoot quite a bit with my friend and i always use his D3 when we go out and i have no issues with the 70-200mm. when not using a filter there is no noticable vignetting. when using a filter i get a tiny bit of vignetting that as i said is easily correctable. if you're that worried about it then get the 80-200mm. same optical quality IMO. i love having the VR on the 70-200 though, and i'm thinking about getting the new 70-200mm with VRII 

a note on the 18-50 f/2.8 sigma, while it's an amazing lens, IMO it beats the nikkor 17-55 in everything except AF speed. however, it will not work on the D700.


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 4, 2009)

Naturegirl said:


> after reading more  I'm thinking Sigma 18-50mm 2.8....and generously giving my kit away . IF I keep the D80 for a bit longer, this is closer to wide than the 24 or 28 would be. And I think it would suffice. And if I do this, I could still opt for a longer zoom now too. But then lies another quesion. If the 70-200 isn't good on the D700 I don't want to bother getting it, even if it would be good on my D80 and I could sell it at some point. What about the Tamron & Sigma copies of the 70-200? And how would they work on the D700 and on my D80? Or the 80-200mm Nikon?
> 
> Whatever I get, it has to be :thumbup: on the D700 as well as my D80. I am getting the D700 at some point, but would be willing to hold off on it for the time being. The wedding I have in October is outdoor, and while the reception is indoor, I do have the sb600 and am comfortable with that. And I might not end up doing another wedding til the spring.


 
Do not get the 18-50 Sigma. That is designed for a crop sensor digital. Will not give full coverage on a D700! Basically any Sigma lens that lists "DC" will not give full coverage on a D700 or film camera.


I would keep the 18-55 your currently have.  Buy a 24 or 28-70, and a 70-200.  The 24-70 or even 28-70 on a future D700 will be nice and wide.  If you keep the 18-55 for now to use on your D80 you will still have a wide lens
Stick with the 24-70 f/2.8 Sigma or 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron.
Either of the 70-200's from Sigma or Tamron will work just fine on your D80 and D700. And of course with Nikon you will want to avoid "DX" lenses if your going to move up to full frame or a film camera in the future (D700).


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 4, 2009)

benhasajeep said:


> Naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > after reading more  I'm thinking Sigma 18-50mm 2.8....and generously giving my kit away . IF I keep the D80 for a bit longer, this is closer to wide than the 24 or 28 would be. And I think it would suffice. And if I do this, I could still opt for a longer zoom now too. But then lies another quesion. If the 70-200 isn't good on the D700 I don't want to bother getting it, even if it would be good on my D80 and I could sell it at some point. What about the Tamron & Sigma copies of the 70-200? And how would they work on the D700 and on my D80? Or the 80-200mm Nikon?
> ...


 I know to avoid the DX nikon lenses.  I wasn't sure which Sigma/Tamron to avoid though.  One thing I keep reading about the Tamron though seems that it's consistently slow in focus, which I wouldn't think would be a good thing for weddings.  But exactly how slow is "slow"? Again, from all the research I've done with the Sig/Tam models it seems to be an issue of sometimes just getting stuck with a crappy copy.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 4, 2009)

if you're going to take weddings seriously i would honestly invest in top quality Nikkor glass. it will make all the difference in the world. i've used top quality "copies" from both Sigma and Tamron. the 18-50mm f/2.8 while having amazing IQ and relatively fast AF... the nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8(dx), 24-70mm f/2.8(fx) and even nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 (fx) will blow away any 3rd party lens in terms of AF speed and especially low light AF speed. the major issue i have with the sigma 18-50mm (DC) and 24-70mm (DG) is the amount and frequency they hunt in low light. it's a major deal breaker for AF speed sensitive circumstances.

these comments are based on my experience... certainly not fact.


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 4, 2009)

yes, i plan to take weddings seriously.  didn't previously want to do them, but somehow i keep getting the work, and i keep enjoying it, so i think that someone is trying to tell me something


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 4, 2009)

For the best performance Nikon is the way to go.  All of my lenses but 1 are Nikon f/2.8's or faster.  And the 1 other is a Tokina f/2.8.  

But there are alot of people doing wedding and sports work with Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron lenses without problems.  Weddings are not that fast of action a slightly slower AF is going to effect the situation.  If you think of it, weddings were done for decades and some still do them with manual focus!

Lenses hold their value very well.  If you were to get 2 fast Sigma or Tamron lenses now.  And in a year or two or more decided to upgrade to Nikons.  They would still have the majority of their value.


----------



## Naturegirl (Aug 4, 2009)

So, the 24-70mm (Nikon) is on backorder pretty much everywhere I've looked. How long does that usually last?  If I were to go ahead & order it, is there a likelihood that it would be here before the end of September?


----------



## benhasajeep (Aug 4, 2009)

Naturegirl said:


> So, the 24-70mm (Nikon) is on backorder pretty much everywhere I've looked. How long does that usually last? If I were to go ahead & order it, is there a likelihood that it would be here before the end of September?


 
Really need to call the store. As everything is shipped by container. And this year it seems bad stock wise for alot of nikon equipment. If you catch them with an order comming you may be able to get one before Sep. But who knows, there could be a waiting list for them.

There are several reputable retailers on ebay. May check there. But before bidding make sure its a "real" retailer. I can't check ebay here at work. But you may find one on there.

Check local stores.  They may have them in stock!


----------



## kundalini (Aug 4, 2009)

I bought into the Nikon system to get Nikkor glass.  There _may be_ some reasonable alternatives, but at the end of the day, Nikkor and Nikon marry pretty well together.

I went from a D80 > D300 > D700.  I've got plenty of glass and 95% of it was purchased while having the D80 alone.  I have 3 DX lenses and the 12-24mm is the only one that I'll keep because it works wonders on the D300.  All other lenses are FX mounts.  I would suggest a similar path.

The Holy Trinity is 14-24mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm.  I have the 12-24mm to mount on the D300 and the other two work fine on a FF.  I also have a collection of primes (which I prefer) but if you want zooms, with a D700, stick with Nikkor IMO.  You're not likely to loose money at the end of the day.

Just my 2¢.


----------

