The first "D700 or [whatever]" question!

[Shacklebolt]

How exciting.

I currently have:

D80
D300
Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8
50 mm f/1.4
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6

I'm debating between:
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 OR
Nikon D700 + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

This choice is slightly obvious to me, because I have an FX lens and no FX camera yet, but the 300mm f/2.8 is SO tempting. I would, honestly, get good use out of both (sets).

Opinions from the cognoscenti?

 

[Martin C]

Will you sell the D80? Having three bodies seems overkill...

 

[Shacklebolt]

Will you sell the D80? Having three bodies seems overkill...

Indeed it is overkill - beyond that, I sadly do not like my D80 that much anymore, at least, it's really tough to use in low light after you've gotten used to the D300. I suppose I would sell the body, yeah, but only if it's worth about 400-500 bucks. I've taken pretty decent care of it.

 

[Hmac]

Depends on what you shoot.

I have both a D3, a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 70-200VR (among others - I have a 28-70 too). I added a 1.4 converter for the 70-200 instead of going for a new lens.

If it were me, I had your lenses, and landscapes were important, I'd get the D700, 14-24 f/2.8 and the 1.4 or 1.7 converter. Nikon looks to be doing a lens lineup re-vamp as they move increasingly toward full frame. I wouldn't want to commit $5000 to a specialty lens until I see what else they have in mind.

 

[rscott]

Yeah, it just depends on what you shoot. For me I'd probably say the 300. Oh, and I am pretty sure there was no 20GB 1G iPod, 20 gigs were introduced in gen two.

 

[Shacklebolt]

Depends on what you shoot.

I have both a D3, a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 70-200VR (among others). I added a 1.4 converter for the 70-200 instead of going for a new lens.

If it were me, I had your lenses, and landscapes were important, I'd get the D700, 14-24 f/2.8 and the 1.4 or 1.7 converter. Nikon looks to be doing a lens lineup re-vamp as they move increasingly toward full frame. I wouldn't want to commit $5000 to a specialty lens until I see what else they have in mind.

Hmmm... teleconverters, you say. Innnteresting. As for the 24-120, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 and 70-200 for now. I'm going to be holding on to the D300 for a while, as I like it quite a bit, and I don't mind keeping a the 70-200 f/2.8 on it. I'd only have one FX body, and until I have two, I don't mind holding on to the DX glass.

 

[Shacklebolt]

Oh, and I am pretty sure there was no 20GB 1G iPod, 20 gigs were introduced in gen two.

Well, perhaps I should have clarified - the first generation 20gb, but yes, you're right, second overall.

 

[wgilles]

I think you should read this:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=175820

 

[Westside guy]

I think you should read this:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=175820

That's one of the sillier threads I've read in quite a while. I don't know the OP (of that nikoncafe.com thread), but I suspect he has a major case of sour grapes and is trying to mask that fact with some ill-thought-out "arguments".

I've pre-ordered the D700. I have no interest in the battery grip. Saving a pound in weight, and several cubic inches in size, matters to me. I have no interest in 8-9 fps. If I had the choice between 12 megapixels and 24 megapixels, I'd take the 12. There is a group of people who really can take advantage of more pixel density, but I suspect it's a fairly small number (and doesn't include a lot of people who think they're in the group).

Not to mention that while $3000US was marginally within my reach, $5000 was out of the question.

Back to the original question: You don't say what you like to shoot. You've got a lot of full-frame glass already, so the D700 wouldn't be limited. But if you do a lot of telephoto, then the 300mm with the D300 is a great combo. If you shoot a lot of low light, though, no question - get the D700.

 

[Hmac]

Hmmm... teleconverters, you say. Innnteresting. As for the 24-120, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 and 70-200 for now. I'm going to be holding on to the D300 for a while, as I like it quite a bit, and I don't mind keeping a the 70-200 f/2.8 on it. I'd only have one FX body, and until I have two, I don't mind holding on to the DX glass.

I've had 1.4 and 1.7 Nikon teleconverters for quite awhile. I didn't care for either very much on my S2Pro or my D2H, but both work really well on my D3.

I've also had the 24-120 since they first came out. It's a mediocre lens, but as a walkaround lens I love the zoom range, size, and weight. I'd love to see a revamp.

 

[Shacklebolt]

That's one of the sillier threads I've read in quite a while. I don't know the OP, but I suspect he has a major case of sour grapes and is trying to mask that fact with some ill-thought-out "arguments".

Not to nitpick here, but I thought personal attacks were supposed to be kept to a minimum on this board?

I have no sorts of sour grapes whatsoever - what could I possibly have sour grapes about? iPods? I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion, but not so curious I feel the need to argue about it.

I have 5k that I might spend on camera gear, and those are my two options. Likewise, I don't think elaborating upon what I want to shoot is important, as I said that I would get good use out of both. I understand what you're saying, and why it's a good question to ask what I would be using it for, but honestly, let's say that I would get equally good use out of both. I don't have a telephoto prime, at the same time that I don't have a quality wide angle, and only one camera body that I really enjoy using.

Perhaps it would be a wiser question not to ask, because I know no one has the D700 yet, nor do many have 300mm f/2.8.

Anyway, please don't make assumptions about my motivation, because, to everyone's credit here, it's very hard to determine how people are feeling over the internet, so it helps to give someone the benefit of the doubt. You were, in this case, incorrect.

 

[Abstract]

^^^He was (obviously) talking about the OP of the other thread.......the one that was linked to.


Anyway....

 

[Westside guy]

Not to nitpick here, but I thought personal attacks were supposed to be kept to a minimum on this board?

No, no, no - As Abstract said, I didn't mean YOU.

Addendum: I've now edited that post to make that even clearer.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I would have to agree with anyone asking the OP of this thread to tell us what he shoots.

For me the decision would be based on the type of jobs I do and the money I have to spend. As a user of the 300 f2.8 I'd say that if you don't use it every day or week your better off renting it or buying it. It's a wonderfully sharp and fast lens and well balanced on a heavy body with mono but it's nothing that can't be had with a tele. Remember that I am also talking price.

Now the D700, if it shows to be exactly like the D3 but smaller, would be a more worth while purchase. And having a D300 and D80 along with it isn't overkill by many people's standards, you just have bodies.

When I do grab whichever FX I see fit in about a year (after the wedding ) and get the gear for the spouse as well we would be up to 7 or 8 bodies. The 5 we have get used extensively, but having the FX bodies will put some in the back seat.

The lenses we have are small, just what we need from a day to day basis, and the rest, the high end stuff, we get from the photo pool or rent. At $3000+ we'd better be using that lens everyday or at least once or twice a week to justify buying one CASH.

 

[Shacklebolt]

No, no, no - As Abstract said, I didn't mean YOU.

Addendum: I've now edited that post to make that even clearer.

<sigh> one of these days I shall, apparently, learn how to read. I think I misread "That's" [first word] as "This is". Thanks for the clarification.

 

[wgilles]

That guy from that other thread is a serious contributor on Nikoncafe. His word is very respected, so I generally trust what he says. He has also helped me out personally a couple times.

 

[Westside guy]

That guy from that other thread is a serious contributor on Nikoncafe. His word is very respected, so I generally trust what he says. He has also helped me out personally a couple times.

Okay, that's good to know. It's just that every one of his arguments in that particular thread seem rather specious. It sounded really Rockwell-ish - on the order of saying "these things don't matter to me, so they can't possibly really matter to anyone".

It's rather funny because I remember when the D3 came out, Thom Hogan basically said "now what I'd REALLY like is ..." followed pretty much by the description of the D700.

 

[Westside guy]

<sigh> one of these days I shall, apparently, learn how to read. I think I misread "That's" [first word] as "This is". Thanks for the clarification.

Hey, I think most of us have done that on occasion - certainly I have.

That's one of the suboptimal things about forums, email and the like. With some of the context gone (e.g. voice inflections), it's a lot easier to misconstrue stuff. Heck, I didn't even intend to attack the guy on that other thread - but apparently I came across that way. I certainly disagree with him in this case; but he's as entitled to his opinions as I am to mine.

 

[cube]

D700 + Tokina 300 f/2.8 (inexpensive but hard to find)

 

[compuwar]

I'm debating between:
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 OR
Nikon D700 + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

This choice is slightly obvious to me, because I have an FX lens and no FX camera yet, but the 300mm f/2.8 is SO tempting. I would, honestly, get good use out of both (sets).

Opinions from the cognoscenti?

Get the lens- it'll be useful for 10-15 years on whatever bodies you'll be shooting. The D700 isn't tested yet- it could have issues we don't know about- the 300VR is one of the sharpest and best lenses Nikon makes, we already know it's good to go, and there's not telling what else Nikon has up its sleeve yet.

 

[Cliff3]

Nikon looks to be doing a lens lineup re-vamp as they move increasingly toward full frame. I wouldn't want to commit $5000 to a specialty lens until I see what else they have in mind.

The 300 f2.8 was released in Sep 04 and has the latest features - nano lens coatings and VR. I wouldn't expect an update of this lens any time soon.

 

[compuwar]

I wouldn't want to commit $5000 to a specialty lens until I see what else they have in mind.

All the super-teles except the 200-400VR have just been revamped, there's no way the 300/2.8 is getting a change in the next 5+ years. The 300 was the first supertele to get VR and nano-coating, followed by the 400VR, 500VR and 600VR.

 

[Hmac]

All the super-teles except the 200-400VR have just been revamped, there's no way the 300/2.8 is getting a change in the next 5+ years. The 300 was the first supertele to get VR and nano-coating, followed by the 400VR, 500VR and 600VR.

Yes, I know this.

Until I see what else they have in mind for the rest of their lens lineup, not super teles. I have more interest in the middle of the zoom lineup. I wouldn't want to spend $5000 on a large specialty lens as long as I might want to be spending a couple of thousand dollars on lenses that are being redesigned for full frame. I'm particularly interested in revisions of the 70-200 and 24-120. The super-teles are nice, but with the possible exception of the 200-400VR, I have little interest.

 

[compuwar]

I'm particularly interested in revisions of the 70-200 and 24-120. The super-teles are nice, but with the possible exception of the 200-400VR, I have little interest.

Given that Vignette control exists, I wouldn't hold my breath for a 70-200 update- but the OP's choices were between the D700 and the 300/2.8- both of which they said they'd get good use out of.

 

[Hmac]

Given that Vignette control exists, I wouldn't hold my breath for a 70-200 update- but the OP's choices were between the D700 and the 300/2.8- both of which they said they'd get good use out of.

Yeh, although the vignette control ain't so hot IMHO. I confess I haven't tried it since the new 2.0 firmware update in the event that they tweaked the VC in some way, however, nor have I worked with it at all in NX2..

As to the 70-200VR, I guess I'd label it at worst "less than perfect" on an FX camera, but IMHO it's still a great lens, the "sub-optimal" aspects easy to work around (or ignore), and although I'd be interested a new version of that lens if and when it's optimized for FX, I don't indeed feel the need to hold my breath waiting for it.

The OP's choice for his $5000 was between the 300 f/2.8 vs the D700 + 14-24 f/2.8. I don't know what kind of photography he does. Answering his question from my point of view, I don't need the 300, would rather use my teleconverters and wait for upgrades to the lenses I am interested in, if and when that occurs. From my standpoint, if I were him and going to spend $5000 on camera equipment right now, I'd spend it on a D700, a 14-24, and a teleconverter for my 70-200VR instead of buying the 300 mm. I have no clue how Nikon's teleconverters perform on his D80 or D300, but I know they work well with the 70-200 on my D3, and I suspect they'll work just as well on a D700.