I left college 14 months ago (Graphics & Photo), and am looking to set up my own business.
I have been working part time for 3 years for a local photographer, and using his equipement. I have a budget of around $18,000 for camera(s) and lenses (I already have lighting).
I have been using all Canon gear, 1D, 1Ds and Canon lenses. I may still go with Canon, but I though it would be a good idea to ask here what the Nikon alternatives are, so that I can look in to them more - i.e. go touch and feel them before actually buying anything.
I would be looking for equivelents to the following:
1Ds (I am assuming D2X at this point)
35 f1.4
85 f1.8
135 f2
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 with IS
300 f2.8 IS
400 f2.8 with IS
What are the model numbers of the Nikon? I don't want to buy cheap glass then find out I need to buy more. I would prefer to buy quality, and only buy ONCE.
Where would be a good place to go for Nikon (in stock and play with) around San Jose?
i don't know about california but if your in seattle washington state area, you can go to glazer's camera...you can play and even rent the equipment...
What kind of shooting are you planing on doing. I see you have the 300 and 400 2.8 can you use the 200-400 f4 VR in place? Just an idea depending on what you need. The 70-200 2.8 VR is an awsome lense.
Well if you can get by with the F4 VR lense than you are set from 70-400 with VR and with the d2x and the HSP you go from 140-800 f4 or 2.8 Nice range.
Really depends on what type shooting you plan to do.
Mike Nelson wrote:
What kind of shooting are you planing on doing. I see you have the 300 and 400 2.8 can you use the 200-400 f4 VR in place? Just an idea depending on what you need. The 70-200 2.8 VR is an awsome lense.
Mike
I am in to a mixture of portraits (looking to do weddings) and also some sports. The 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 are/were used fairly often at f2.8, so I am not sure if I can get by with f4. I also use the 1.4x on the 400, which makes it f4. On the 200-400 that would mean f5.6 which is not going to cut it.
Do Nikon have longer primes with VR? I could not see any when I checked out B&H.
Nical wrote:
I am in to a mixture of portraits (looking to do weddings) and also some sports. The 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 are/were used fairly often at f2.8, so I am not sure if I can get by with f4. I also use the 1.4x on the 400, which makes it f4. On the 200-400 that would mean f5.6 which is not going to cut it.
Do Nikon have longer primes with VR? I could not see any when I checked out B&H.
Well remember that if you are using the 200-400 f4 on the d2x you can use the HSC which would give you 400-800mm image at 8fps and 6.7mp. If cost is an option to start it might be a very good option. Once again it is just an idea. It just depends on hom much and how importaint the 2.8 is. I have not used thew 200-400 but I have herd it is an awsome lense and for the price you can't beat it. Alot cheaper than buying a 300 2.8 IS and the 400 2.8 is.
Well anyway just something to think about. Good luck and man I wish I had $18,000 to spend on gear right now. If you need any help I would be happy to help you spend it..
Hmmm.... I guess I need to go play with the 200-400 on a D2X.
I got a little bit lucky in that I was left the money in a will. I am trying to be restrained and not just blow it. I want to make sure I use it wisely, and buy good stuff to start with. I may not get this chance again for a long time.....
Well if it was me I would get the 70-200 VR and the 200-400 VR that would run about $7200 for both compaired to about $10,400 ruff price. Well for the extra 4 grand you can pick up a couple SB800's and get a much better flash system than you could ever get with canon. You do loose a bit if you are doing alot of shooting in low light sports but you can always add a 3002.8 later.
I just checked you could pick up a 300 2.8 VR for the difference in price.
The d2x with the SB800 would be a very nice choice for weddings and portaits.
Kepp us informed I would be interested to here what you decide.
