Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Is that patented 16-35 F2.8VR coming? |
I consider myself at best an intermediate skill photographer, and I've never used full frame. But, I've weighed full frame's pros and cons for my photography, and part of my real job is helping people with decision making, so I'll jump in.
In your case, since you sell images, the bottom line is do you think an FX purchase (along with all the accessories) will make you more money than you spend on them in the next 3-4 years? If so, then the answer is an easy yes.
A number of magazine editors may like the fact that you bring them 24mp files (were that the case, these folks would like it even better if you brought them 36mp files ), notwithstanding that I might argue such big files are unnecessary for magazines. Beyond that, the only benefit they might get from you bringing them FX photos is improved subjective image quality. Do you think you can wring more subjective image quality out of FX shots than D7000 shots in or current or future shooting conditions?
A thread on Nikonians suggests that the D600/800 gain only 1 stop better noise/dynamic range performance at high ISOs over the D7000. The data is persuasive to me, but even were it not I doubt the advantage would be more than 2 stops.
You know what wide zoom lenses exist and their pros and cons. Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it here, and even if a 16-35 f/2.8 VR existed again the weight and price would present a different set of problems. Unfortunately, it would seem to me that you just have to pick which lens provides you with the least amount of disadvantages. I could see the argument going for either the 16-35 VR or the 17-35 f/2.8 - the VR vs. 2.8 tradeoff is one only you can decide based on your experience. (I do landscapes so, as long as they're sharp, I don't really care about VR or large apertures. I do care about weight and especially bulk, since those can kill my appetite for bringing a camera or taking a picture in any given situation)
I'm told the Tokina will work at 16mm on full frame cameras. Keeping that for the time you really need 16mm might be a worthwhile option.
As an alternate suggestion: have you considered the Nikon or Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (which is cheaper and according to what I've heard so far better)? You say you often take pictures of fish in focus with fishermen out of focus with a wide angle. The 35mm would distort the fish less, and theoretically provide more DOF, especially on full frame. If you took this kind of picture a lot, this alone IMO would justify going FF.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Marc, whatever your real job is it definitely comes through! I'll share a bit more about my situation...I am just finishing college (2 weeks left) which means that of course budget is always a concern. During college I have been a staff photographer for the university newspaper, and then sold a lot of travel/fly fishing photography to different magazines which pays far better, but because of the cost of the fishing trips I enjoy so much I am basically paying for my trip (airfare, gas, etc) and not profiting most of the time. It has been great to be regularly published, but I think that I could have pulled it all off with pretty modest gear.
I am now at a point though where I am looking to take my photography to the next level and pursue it as a career, but nothing is very certain right now. I have applied for paid photo internships with the Seattle Times and SF Gate for this coming summer, and if I got one of those positions and continued on to pursue photojournalism professionally then FX pro gear would be a no brainer. If that all doesn't come through and I head a different direction for the time being, then photography might be sidelined to earning maybe $2,500-$3,000 per year for fly fishing mags and the investment would make little sense. The prudent thing to probably do is wait 6 months or a year and figure out what level I will be involved with photography at and proceed from there...i'm just so passionate about it and enjoy it so much that the patience does not come easily and the excitement of a camera like the D600 is tough to avoid (though I do love my D7000s).
As to a 35/1.4, both the Nikon and Sigma offerings look good for sure. I am skipping the 35mm focal range though, as I got a great deal on a sigma 50mm F1.4 and then couldn't resist another pretty awesome deal on a Nikon 24mm F1.4. I wanted the 24 because the wider the better lots of times, and 24 and 50 would be too close together to justify having both for me. Of course with a D600 the versatility of the 24/1.4 would be amazing, plus I could sell the 50/1.4 and invest in an 85/1.4 which would give me a similar FOV and better subject isolation on the D600 and then a totally new perspective when shot on DX. I dig the way you can own way less lenses with a DX/FX combo because of the changes in FOV. A lot to think about...I probably just need to sit back and wait for a while! Best to just shoot with the awesome gear I've already invested in and not get caught up in D600 lust for the time being.