Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 IF EX DG HSM

Neither of the sigmas are great. You have to decide if you want that lens range within a zoom and f/2.8. (if you need pro build quality and fast AF then the Nikon is the only option).

I think if you buy the D700 and you really care about that focal rnage, then the 24-70 is a must. If you do't care about that focal rnage but want soemthing to cover it, then one of Sigmas or Tamrons are acceptable for ocasional use.


Nikon is almsot certainly soon to relause an upgrade to the 24-120, in some kind of equivalence to the Canon 24-105 f/4 . Perhaps Nikon will provide a 24-120 f/4.

Personally I shoot either wider or longer, and when in the middle ground there are plent of prime altenatives.

24-70 is kind of a wedding lens mostly.
My dream D700 setup is a 14-24 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VRII, 35 1.4 or 2.0, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (don't need the 1.4 here). The middle ground I could do with a Canon 24-105 f/4 just to round things off, so hopefully the Nikon is a good lens.
 
D.P. said:
Personally I shoot either wider or longer, and when in the middle ground there are plent of prime altenatives.
Click to expand...

Same here: 17-35 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 is my set-up on a 1.26x crop body for everyday shooting.

The other bits (28mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 300mm f/2.8) are more 'I need a lens to do this with... type thing.
 
PaulStat said:
I appreciate what you're saying Rob but what would be the point in me getting a FX lens for a 6.1 mega pixel DX body.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting you did—see my above point. Instead of spending £1750 on a D700 and having to buy an inferior lens to go with it, spend £1150 on a D300s, keep your 18-70—which is truly excellent apart from being f/3.5–5.6 and not so sturdily built—and get a 35mm f/1.8 to give you brilliant image quality and great low-light capability (the equal of a D700 and an f/2.8 lens). Total saving £1000, and you get video thrown in. Sounds like a bargain to me!

I was in a similar position when I got my D300 (though I did have a bigger investment in DX lenses to consider), and when I actually thought properly about it I realised that my craving for FX was just that, a craving: I didn't need it, and it would have been totally uneconomical—in the initial cost of the body, but also in needing to buy another wide angle zoom to replace my 10-20 and another mild tele prime to replace my 50 1.8. It's just not worth it unless you're rolling in cash or really in need of FX—and I'm neither!
 
Last edited:
PaulStat said:
surely you can't go far wrong with prime lenses (Nikkor ones none the less).

I appreciate what you're saying Rob but what would be the point in me getting a FX lens for a 6.1 mega pixel DX body. Like I keep saying I consider this a stepping stone in to the full frame market, which I'd like to go to eventually anyway, especially given my photography style of choice.

I'm sure one day I'll sell whatever lens it is I choose to get now and go with the super duper £1k+ Nikkor lens
Click to expand...


The 24 2.8 is not a great lens by modern standards. It is 25 years old and desperately needs updating.


If you want to go to full frame eventually then buy the glass now and then in the future buy the body. I think a jump form D70 to D700 is far too much. A D90 or D300 with good glass would be a much more reasonable jump. Consider a D90 and buy a 24-70 (provided you will use the 24-70 for portraiture and not a walk about lens). Then when you outgrow the D90 you already have the right lens for full frame.


Full frame is a bit of a fad at the moment. List 5 reason why you really need a full frame camera. (it is very easy to list 5 reasons to stick to DX cameras)
 
Last edited:
Ok here are the options I am now considering, I'd flog my 18-70 in all scenarios (well I think I would anyway)

Nikon D300s + Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 ~ £2050
Nikon D300s + Nikon 35mm f1.8 ~ £1160
Nikon D700 + Nikon Af-S 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 G Lens ~ £1870
Nikon D700 + Nikon 24mm f2.8 D AF Lens ~ £2028

If I went for option 1 that would give me a great camera a great lens and mean if I wanted to I could upgrade to full frame at some point in the future and still have a great lens. Don't think I'd consider going from a D70 - D90 doesn't seem enough of a leap.
 
The D70 to the D90 is a big leap IMO. You need to decide if you want the extra features from the D300. The main difference is professional AF, but that D90 has a big leap in AF from the D70.

If you go for option 1 you really have to think if you a 24-70 lens on a DX body. 24mm is not wide enough for me.

Options 3 and 4 aren't options at all IMO. Have a think about what lenses you really need for Full frame. I expect a 35 2.0, 50 1.5 and 85 1.8 will offer you more.
 
Well I do want to invest in some glass, bit more expensive again but would the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 be a good investment? I looked at the 14-24 but it seems you can't put filters on the front which is a big turn off.

Edit: Or even the 17-55 f2.8

Edit2: actually never mind the 17-55 is a DX :p
 
Last edited:
The 17-35 is great but discontinued, so you'd have to get it second hand and they're not particularly common or cheap (since they're sought after by every FX user who wants an ultrawide that takes filters). The 17-55 is good but shockingly overpriced for what it is, frankly.

What don't you like about your 18-70? In terms of acuity it's really excellent, especially if—as you say—you mostly shoot landscapes and outdoor stuff, where I assume you use smaller apertures. At f/8, I would bet money that you couldn't tell it apart from the 17-55 2.8.

D300s + 18-70 + 35 1.8 gives you a pro body; video; great sharpness and flexibility in the daytime; true wide angle; and low-light capability. What more do you really need?
 
Well the D700 would obviously be my preferred choice but as you keep pointing out there's not a lot of point going that route if I don't have great quality lenses to support it.

So another option I am considering is keeping my D70 for now, investing in a nice FX lens, then when the D700 is superseded by the D700s or whatever it's going to be, pick up a second hand D700 from ebay.

And I am seriously considering the option you've provided me with too, not ignoring your advice just keeping my options open
 
robmiller said:
The 17-35 is great but discontinued, so you'd have to get it second hand and they're not particularly common or cheap (since they're sought after by every FX user who wants an ultrawide that takes filters).
Click to expand...

I've just done a google search and found it in quite a few places unless the "Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED Lens" is different?
 
I really love the images the 17-35 produces, on a DX let alone an FX.

Why not buy something like a 35mm 1.4 and use your feet instead of zoom ? And a D700.
 
PaulStat said:
Well the D700 would obviously be my preferred choice but as you keep pointing out there's not a lot of point going that route if I don't have great quality lenses to support it.

So another option I am considering is keeping my D70 for now, investing in a nice FX lens, then when the D700 is superseded by the D700s or whatever it's going to be, pick up a second hand D700 from ebay.

And I am seriously considering the option you've provided me with too, not ignoring your advice just keeping my options open
Click to expand...

If you want a D700 go for it, if I listened to some on here I'd still have a 500D that I wouldn't entirely be happy with. I don't know anything about the NIKON lens line up, but even the cheapo 50mm f1.8 flies on my 1D...

The D700 is a cracking camera, a body does also give you benefits and it's a body you will keep for a good few years yet I would imagine.
 
Rojin said:
If you want a D700 go for it, if I listened to some on here I'd still have a 500D that I wouldn't entirely be happy with. I don't know anything about the NIKON lens line up, but even the cheapo 50mm f1.8 flies on my 1D...

The D700 is a cracking camera, a body does also give you benefits and it's a body you will keep for a good few years yet I would imagine.
Click to expand...

That's a really silly suggestion, though, because the D700 and D300 are functionally identical beyond the sensor differences, and the sensor differences are precisely the issue here—since they necessitate a huge shift in lenses.

If you don't know anything about Nikons, why would you start recommending which Nikon body to buy?

Thom Hogan, as usual, sums up everything in this thread perfectly:

You'll note that I'm basically against moving from DX to FX. Realistically, few people actually need FX. Indeed, when I quiz people asking the "should I get a D3/D3x/D700" question about why they want FX, most of them don't know. It's in some way vaguely better, but they can't define how it will improve their picture taking. If you can't define it, you don't need it. (Yet. You may some day.) We get so caught up in generalized absolutes (e.g. "bigger is better") that we start believing them without challenging them. Let me put it this way: if you haven't printed larger than 13x19" or shot at ISO 6400 lately, there's nothing wrong with DX. Even if you have done those things, FX isn't an automatic choice. I know many pros that shoot DX. I do it myself whenever I'm not doing landscape photography (24mp in the D3x is hard for a landscape photographer to pass over) or indoor sports (the D3's high ISO capability is unmatched for indoor sports work).
Click to expand...
 
A D700 has the same sensor as the D3 which is leagues above Canons offering for full frame photography according to all the real experts.

Canon seems leagues above Nikon for DX... 1dMk4 vs D300...
 
twoblacklines said:
Canon seems leagues above Nikon for DX... 1dMk4 vs D300...
Click to expand...

The 1D mkIV is not only not DX (it's 1.3x, not 1.5x) and over two years more recent than the D300, but is pitched—and priced—to compete with with the D3s, in the same way that the 1Ds targets the same market as the D3x.

The 7D is what you want to be comparing to the D300s, really—it's the most obvious competitor in the Canon lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom