Have you tried the D700 with an 85f/1.4, 28-70 or 24-70f/2.8 Nikkor lense?
If not you need to. There have been very few shooters that did not like the feel and handling of the D700 over the 5D. You could be one of them.
I shoot with a Nikon D3. Recently, when an advanced Amateur asked me a question about their 1Ds Mark III, I held it for a few minutes while trying to work out the problem. The controls were all in the wrong place for me. The AF button to small and generally the camera was uncomfortable for me to hold. Several years before that, I had a similar result from the 20D, although being lighter, I could at least shoot with it.
The best tool for you is the one you can work with. Specs should be second on your list. "The kid with the cardboard camera who is in the right place at the right time will get the shot of the day. "
Regarding the 24-70 vs. 28-70, a key difference is flare resistance. The 24-70 is superb in this regard, and the 28-70 isn't quite as good. The nano coating really shines (in the sense that it doesn't, so to speak). The 28-70 is an outstanding lens, particularly on FX, where there's just a 4mm difference on the wide end (it's really problematic on DX). Some here swear by it and have no plans to upgrade to the 24-70.
I've read mixed things about the 105 VR. Some love it, others seem to actively dislike it. Bjorn Rorslett blasted the new 105 and chucked it after a short while. A sharp photographer I know locally was going to get it, tested it out and found it wanting.
That's all highly anecdotal, and Photozone's tests showed it to be outstanding in terms of sharpness.
I've had my 28-70 for 10 years. Used it on all the D series pro bodies including DX and never noticed any flaring problem. Perhaps it is because I do not shoot into the Sun.
If something happened to it I would replace it with the 24-70 if the price were nearly equal, but only to gain the 4mm.
jshowyin wrote:
At this stage, taking on board all the great advice above, I am leaning towards:
* a new D700
* used lenses:
- 28-75mm Tammy or Nikon 24-70 (or possibly the older 28-70 - what are the key differences)
- Nikon 35/2 (would buy this for a lighter walk around lens if I went the Nikon 24/28-70 option above)
- either a Nikon 105VR (for both portrait and macro) or Siggy 150EX + Nikon 85/1.4 or 85/1.8
- no great knowledge of used Nikon glass prices, so unsure of approx budget for the above kit.
To save some money, you could get the older 28-70, which is still a fantastic lens.
For a lighter walk around lens on the D700, why not a used nifty fifty instead? Much cheaper.
Get that 85 f/1.4, it really is a great lens. I don't have knowledge of the Siggy so I can't comment, but it seems to give good results from what I have seen.
This all should fit inside 2500 I would think (+/- 200).
jshowyin wrote:
At this stage, taking on board all the great advice above, I am leaning towards:
* a new D700
* used lenses:
- 28-75mm Tammy or Nikon 24-70 (or possibly the older 28-70 - what are the key differences)
- Nikon 35/2 (would buy this for a lighter walk around lens if I went the Nikon 24/28-70 option above)
- either a Nikon 105VR (for both portrait and macro) or Siggy 150EX + Nikon 85/1.4 or 85/1.8
- no great knowledge of used Nikon glass prices, so unsure of approx budget for the above kit.
To save some money, you could get the older 28-70, which is still a fantastic lens.
For a lighter walk around lens on the D700, why not a used nifty fifty instead? Much cheaper.
Get that 85 f/1.4, it really is a great lens. I don't have knowledge of the Siggy so I can't comment, but it seems to give good results from what I have seen.
This all should fit inside 2500 I would think (+/- 200).
in late december last year, the lowest reputable price on a D700 was $2150(!). i bought a 5D mark 2 instead, but due discovering since then the ins and outs of its paleolithic autofocus, i still wonder if it wouldn't have been wiser to switch back to nikon when the gettin' was good. gah
In my own experience, as well as in experience of some others here on FM, the AF of the D700 is only OK under low light conditions. It hunts a lot and it results in a fairly high OOF images. That's using a single AF point and single shot mode (with and without AF light of a flash). Besides that, I have no complaints about the camera though and the high ISO files are impressive. I have not compared the AF aspect between the D700 and 5D MarkII.
abam wrote:
in late december last year, the lowest reputable price on a D700 was $2150(!). i bought a 5D mark 2 instead, but due discovering since then the ins and outs of its paleolithic autofocus, i still wonder if it wouldn't have been wiser to switch back to nikon when the gettin' was good. gah
The D700 AF isn't always stellar either. Today mine refused to lock focus with the peripheral points using the 24-70, at good light and average contrast subjects. It was raining, but still... The middle one worked fine.
Thanks to all once again who took the time to share their wisdom.
"The grass is always greener on the other side." There is truth in that statement, however, in this particular situation I find myself in I don't think my primary motivation is GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) - having said that, I have been a victim of this in the past!
I am looking at this situation, having had almost all of my Canon gear stolen, as a potential opportunity to consolidate from 2 bodies (XSi + 1D MkI) into one, that will fulfil the vast majority of my needs.
Thanks for the insights into the D700's performance in low light. First real negative for my particular needs/situation, so will need to consider that.
My preference is starting to solidify into a D700 + Tammy 28-75mm (as it will be primary used as a lighter walk around) + Nikon 85/1.4, with a SB-900 and Siggy 150EX to follow eventually.
Wow, lots of different opinions here. A little fuel for the fire:
I started in 1982 with Canon film bodies, and ever since I went to digital with a little Nikon D70s, my only film SLR is the antique paperweight on my office desk. I believe that all normal people--amateur and pro alike--should regard film as they would a horse-drawn wagon: a historical curiosity, perhaps a source of limited fun, but of no real practical use. The caveat to that is obvious: there will always be someone who chooses to use film as his/her artistic medium for whatever reason (grain, colors, processing expertise, habit, you name it); and for that purpose, film is and always will be a perfectly valid choice.
Back to the OP's gear list, however. I'll try to be brief (not my strong suit!):
1. Most importantly when considering a Canon-to-Nikon switch, it is critical to switch mindsets first. Learn about the pros/cons of each item in the Nikon camp from the Nikon point of view, and do not make your choices based on Canon thinking. Choosing Nikon gear based on your paradigms learned on Canon gear is like having one of your girlfriends choose your wife... neither one is going to work out real well.
2. Yes, glass first!
3. Yes, Nikon's zooms are the strongest part of the lineup. And yes, masses of people either brag or bemoan the fact that Canon's primes are better than Nikon's primes. But a few of Nikon's zooms outperform even the Canon primes, OK? I distinctly recall a bunch of Canon and Nikon people concluding that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is a better optical performer than any currently available Nikon or Canon prime in that FL range. Even if you were to downgrade that a notch and simply say that the 14-24 was "as good" as the C/N primes... that would make the 14-24 a sweet deal, wouldn't it?
4. For similar reasons to #3 above, I really suggest you rent or borrow some gear for a few days to test. You may find that a great deal of what you want to do is best done ("best" being defined as "best for your taste and needs") with different gear than you originally thought you'd need.
I think this would do everything you wanted and then some. When you later decide to upgrade to a D700 or whatever is available then, you' d only have to get rid of the 35/1.8 because that's the only DX lens in the list. Killer images you'd get out of that kit, too.
I built most of that kit around primes while still just barely missing your $5K budget. I'd bet money, though, that once you really put a 24-70 through its paces, you'll at least have a good hard think about using that as your primary tool and reducing your preference for primes.
jshowyin wrote:
My preference is starting to solidify into a D700 + Tammy 28-75mm (as it will be primary used as a lighter walk around) + Nikon 85/1.4, with a SB-900 and Siggy 150EX to follow eventually.
Thanks again.
You'll be very happy with this setup, but I would seriously start saving up or looking for a way to buy the 24-70 2.8 You'll be surprised.
Jun 16, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
photomatt88 wrote:
You'll be very happy with this setup, but I would seriously start saving up or looking for a way to buy the 24-70 2.8 You'll be surprised.
Thanks Matt. I have seen a bucket load of fantastic pics coming from that lens and have heard almost nothing but absolute praise for it, so I am pretty sure I wouldn't be surprised, but definitely impressed if I did get one.
However, for my particular needs (as I perceive them right now), I am looking for a light weight mid-zoom for carrying around to family outings. Regardless of the IQ, build quality and performance of the Nikon 24-70/2.8, it is a big and heavy piece of glass and thus doesn't really fit my need. The Tammy 28-75, being approx 1lb lighter, fits the bill a little better and the IQs not too shabby.
My sole camera used to be a 1D MkI with a 28-70L attached - coming in at about 6 pounds with a flash on top it was just a little much to cart around everywhere for family outings where photography wasn't the main focus. When I was actually using it I didn't have a problem with the weight at all. The 'problem' I had was carting the camera bag around in addition to all the usual stuff required to take my two young daughters out. This 'problem' actually made me invest in a XSi body - my walk around kit became the XSi + 50/1.4, which weighed in at a featherlight 2lbs or so.
Having said that, everyone keeps telling me zooms are one of Nikon's main strengths and that the 24-70 is a must have, so I am still considering how to tweak my lens lineup and stay within my budget.
So, couple of questions:
1) on a FX body - how would the 24-70/2.8 (or 28-70/2.8 as a slightly cheaper alternative) perform as a replacement for the Nikon 85/1.4 (mainly for use as a portrait lens)?
2) if you had to choose between the two, which would you choose, keeping in mind that I do value the high-ISO performance of the D700?
i) D300 + 24-70/2.8
ii) D700 + Tammy 28-75
Thanks again.
Jun 16, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
^^^^ The 24-70 sucks below f/2.8 The extra two stops can be huge if needed and used properly.
I'd go with the D300 + 24-70 over the D700 + Tammy. Glass does not loose its value and is useful for years. Glass is more reliable and less likely to need to be replaced. Bodies come and bodies go. In other year or two, something better than the D700 will come out and for less money.
1) on a FX body - how would the 24-70/2.8 (or 28-70/2.8 as a slightly cheaper alternative) perform as a replacement for the Nikon 85/1.4 (mainly for use as a portrait lens)?
2) if you had to choose between the two, which would you choose, keeping in mind that I do value the high-ISO performance of the D700?
i) D300 + 24-70/2.8
ii) D700 + Tammy 28-75
Thanks again.
1. The 28-70 is so good that I never considered buying a 24-70.
Having said that I would probably get the 24-70 instead if something happened to the 28-70 just to get those 4mm.
As for the 85 f/1.4, I will dust it off and try it today.
Since getting one of the first D3 bodies I have used nothing but zooms.
14-24, 28-70, 70-200, 80-400 (my most used lense), 200-400, and 300-800.
2. ii in a heartbeat.
The Tamron is so cheap that it does not matter if the used price goes down.
I have used a D300 for several weeks and did not like it.
I traded it in on a second D3 and kept my D2Xs for backup.
I just tried the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 on my D3 and like the 28-70 and 70-200 both better at 85 because of the lack of depth of field.
This is a very special lense. I had to go to f/16 to exceed the other lenses at f/2.8.
For Portraits and other People shots it is hard to beat the isolation and quality of the image. Others use this lense for Landscapes and Architecture but I do not know how.
D700, 105 VR Micro, and SB900. That covers macro and portrait for around 4K, less if used. There are always little things you might need, such as CF cards, another battery, etc. You might add a 24 2.8 or 35 2.0 for about 350.
I don't have knowledge of the Siggy so I can't comment, but it seems to give good results from what I have seen.
The extra two stops can be huge if needed and used properly.