# RE: Lens for Nikon D700



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

*RE: Lens for Nikon D700*

Hi

I am considering upgrading to the D700 from the D300s and was considering what lenses to purchase. I cannot afford the $1200+ lens. Any advice?
Thanks


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

garf1108 said:


> Hi
> 
> I am considering upgrading to the D700 from the D300s and was considering what lenses to purchase. I cannot afford the $1200+ lens. Any advice?
> Thanks


First you want to make sure you purchase FX full frame lens *not *DX lens. After that, your wallet is you limit.

You want a 50 mm like the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G 

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G from Nikon

But you may want to go down to a 35mm. But the f1.4 35mm is $2K

You could consider the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED from Nikon

But like you if I had the money my choices would be the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. And the 35mm for landscape.

Visit Nikon website they have a great compare tool and list all their lenses.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

I'll say it first before someone else does, what type of photography are you doing for that is important in determining your choice of lenses? Also what do you have now?
I bought the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G which came out last year and is low cost ($250) but light and super fast and sharp. My friend a wedding photographer bought the same lens after he saw mine. Great add on lens for him and his D300 and he loves it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

garf1108 said:


> Hi
> 
> I am considering upgrading to the D700 from the D300s and was considering what lenses to purchase. I cannot afford the $1200+ lens. Any advice?
> Thanks


Pretty open question however if you want to take advantage of the full frame do not buy DX lenses as they are made for cameras with the APS-C size sensor...

Beyond that it all depends on what you shoot how you shoot etc...

Need a little more info to offer any meaningful advice.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The DX lenses do work on the FX D700, but at a reduced resolution (file size). Don't waste your money on them, unless you already own them.

To save money, look at some full frame 3rd party options such as Sigma. I own the 70-200mm ƒ2.8 from Sigma, but I bit the bullet for the 24-70mm ƒ2.8 from Nikon. 

Going FX is an investment...:lmao:

WTF is there a link in my post I can't get rid of? Mayor? I never added a link to frigging ebay...<--and again...and who is Viglink?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> *The DX lenses do work on the FX D700*, but at a reduced resolution (file size). Don't waste your money on them, unless you already own them.
> 
> To save money, look at some full frame 3rd party options such as Sigma. I own the 70-200mm ƒ2.8 from Sigma, but I bit the bullet for the 24-70mm ƒ2.8 from Nikon.
> 
> ...


I know that is why I said if you want full frame.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> The DX lenses do work on the FX D700, but at a reduced resolution (file size). Don't waste your money on them, unless you already own them.
> 
> To save money, look at some full frame 3rd party options such as Sigma. I own the 70-200mm ƒ2.8 from Sigma, but I bit the bullet for the 24-70mm ƒ2.8 from Nikon.
> 
> ...


Something weird is going on I am getting all these links to and my post was delayed being posted as I responded when no one else had and it shows up 3rd....


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Something weird is going on I am getting all these links to and my post was delayed being posted as I responded when no one else had and it shows up 3rd....


space time continuum


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

Hi

Thanks for all the advice. I do have the DX lenses for my D300S and I know that it isn't suitable for the D700. I do the odd wedding and portrait work. Photography is just my hobby.

Thanks


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Just thought I give you some info o the D700 the price of the D700 has already dropped $500 apparently.

Nikon D700 is now $500 cheaper | Nikon Rumors


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

garf1108 said:


> Hi
> 
> I am considering upgrading to the D700 from the D300s and was considering what lenses to purchase. I cannot afford the $1200+ lens. Any advice?
> Thanks


Perhaps it is me, but I'd rethink you're strategy. The switch from the D300s to the D700 won't make sense if you don't invest in the right glass. I'd suggest keeping the D300s and making an investment in lenses. 

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by switching bodies.

Can you elaborate?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Oakbridge said:


> Perhaps it is me, but I'd rethink you're strategy. The switch from the D300s to the D700 won't make sense if you don't invest in the right glass. I'd suggest keeping the D300s and making an investment in lenses.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by switching bodies.
> 
> Can you elaborate?


That is also very true and didn't want to say it. Does the OP know you can use the FX lenses on the DX body. I was told that when using an FX lens on a DX body that you actually use the best part of the glass because you only looking through the middle part of the lens and not using outer edges of the glass.

I was told buy a lens to keep forever and the body you keep changing.

if you are going to invest in a body that is over $2000 and an outgoing version than it would be my thinking that you should also include investing in good glass because exactly like you said what are you trying to acheive with the D700 that you can't get with the D300.


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

I am considering moving up to the D700 as one of my friends, who is a professional photographer, is selling to upgrade to the D800. He is selling the D700 relatively cheap and it only has 21000 actuations as it is his back up camera.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

garf1108 said:


> I am considering moving up to the D700 as one of my friends, who is a professional photographer, is selling to upgrade to the D800. He is selling the D700 relatively cheap and it only has 21000 actuations as it is his back up camera.


But why do you need it?

As I said earlier, you'll see a much better return on an investment in higher quality lenses, rather than a body.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Don't care who says it, what they think. 

Rule One, Do not buy third party lenses if you want high quality results. Period. While it is possible to get a 'bad' copy of a Canon/Nikon Pro lens, the odds are slim. The odds of having a horrid experience with Sigma or Tamron are very high. Save your arguments, their build quality and materials are inferior. 

Rule Two, Lenses count for about 75% of image quality in digital photography. A D700 is a waste if attached to a $300 kit lens or any DX lens for that matter. 


The hype that surrounds 'body' releases is nothing but marketing departments doing their job to suck in the 'consumer photographer' to upgrading so they can take better photos. D700 is a great FX digital body, awesome in low light but it's only as good as the lenses you attach it to. 

If you don't have the money for high-end lenses and the D700, keep the D300s and spend the money on a 1000+ pro lens. You'll be much happier with the results.


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

Thanks
All my DX lenses are Nikon.


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

Update:

The question is now irrelevant as my friend has decided to keep the D700 for the time being.
Thanks
:-(


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> That is also very true and didn't want to say it. Does the OP know you can use the FX lenses on the DX body. I was told that when using an FX lens on a DX body that you actually use the best part of the glass because you only looking through the middle part of the lens and not using outer edges of the glass.
> 
> I was told buy a lens to keep forever and the body you keep changing.
> 
> if you are going to invest in a body that is over $2000 and an outgoing version than it would be my thinking that you should also include investing in good glass because exactly like you said what are you trying to acheive with the D700 that you can't get with the D300.


Always been my philosophy too! Lens esp. the big boys, NIkon or Canon retain their value a lot more than bodies do. The technology of lens has far less room to improve than bodies do for instance digital camera sensors are improving exponentially every year.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

garf1108 said:


> Update:
> 
> The question is now irrelevant as my friend has decided to keep the D700 for the time being.
> Thanks
> :-(


Just as well, The D700's will be coming down in price soon anyways,
Maybe you'll be able to get a demo or open box in the near future.

Cheers!


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

You friend did you a favor. The D300s is a really nice body capable of producing high quality files when attached to pro glass.

Take all that money you were going to spend on the D700 and go find an 85 f/1.4 or 28-70 f/2.8 (24-70 is overrated and not worth the money) 70-200 f/2.8 vl is a great go to lens. 

Either way you're always better off spending money on pro glass. And ya, in 6 months D700's will be everywhere cheap. (It will time out perfectly with people hitting the forums wondering why their new D800e isn't like a Mamiya after all.  ) ya ya .....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Don't care who says it, what they think.
> 
> *Rule One, Do not buy third party lenses if you want high quality results. Period.* While it is possible to get a 'bad' copy of a Canon/Nikon Pro lens, the odds are slim. The odds of having a horrid experience with Sigma or Tamron are very high. Save your arguments, their build quality and materials are inferior.
> 
> ...


Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but is far from a cold hard fact. Sigma makes some fine lenses. I know, I have owned one for both my Cannon 30D (before moving to Nikon) and Nikon D300. 

In particular the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 (macro) is a great multipurpose zoom lens.

Additionally you would be lumping Zeiss lenses into that 3rd party lens manufacturer category which in terms of build quality and optics is equal to in some cases far surpasses anything made by Canon or Nikon.

So while you can say "save your arguments", highly condescending to say the least BTW, it is just one man's opinion.

The most important pieces of "equipment" for a photographer is their knowledge, creativity and vision. All the "high-end" gear in the world won't yield great results without those "intangible" things.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Additionally you would be lumping Zeiss lenses into that 3rd party lens manufacturer category which in terms of build quality and optics is equal to in some cases far surpasses anything made by Canon or Nikon.
> 
> So while you can say "save your arguments", highly condescending to say the least BTW, it is just one man's opinion.


Of course I would not classify Zeiss lenses as third party, but seeing as the thread was dealing with a D700 seemed kinda pointless in bring up Zeiss as most people don't know how to 'make them work' with Canon or Nikon. In a perfect world they would be the only lens company... 

Sorry but Sigma, Tamron especially build junk. Will they work? Sure, and while I see why people buy them, I've used them myself early on, in the end you end up in much better shape buying a used pro Nikon/Canon lens over a new Sigma/Tamron lens. And just to clarify I'm talking about people trying to obtain the best possible file they can from their equipment, not someone who just wants to snap off shots of their kid playing on the beach or something where a 70-200 2.8 Sigma would work... providing water didn't hit it. lol


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Of course I would not classify Zeiss lenses as third party, but seeing as the thread was dealing with a D700 seemed kinda pointless in bring up Zeiss as* most people don't know how to 'make them work' with Canon or Nikon*. In a perfect world the would be the only lens company...
> 
> Sorry but Sigma, Tamron especially build junk. Will they work? Sure, and while I see why people buy them, I've used them myself early on, in the end you end up in much better shape buying a used pro Nikon/Canon lens over a new Sigma/Tamron lens. And just to clarify I'm talking about people trying to obtain the best possible file they can from their equipment, not someone who just wants to snap off shots of their kid playing on the beach or something where a 70-200 2.8 Sigma would work... providing water didn't hit it. lol


Actually Zeiss have lines that work perfectly well with Nikon and Canon Cameras no adapters, etc. needed:

ZF.2: SLR lenses with F bayonet mount for cameras from Nikon

ZE: Lenses equipped with an EF bayonet for EOS cameras from Canon

I agree with you in regard to Tamron but not Sgima, you may have abandoned them some time ago and so are not aware of the advances they have made in build quality and optics.

There is obviously no convincing you but I can tell you that the build quality of my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 HSM is every bit as good as my Nikkor ED 70-300mm 4.5-5.6.

Is Sigma the best? No far from it, but (depending on the lens) they are far from being junk, (and BTW Canon and Nikon both make some pretty junky lenses) also not everyone has deep pockets or wants to save for a year or more to get "the best" lens. 

So get a perfectly fine lens to get out shooting "now". IMO better to get a decent lens and get out shooting developing you knowledge, skills and artistry than sitting at home saving up to buy the "perfect" lens.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The truth is that 99.99% could never tell the difference between my Sigma 70-200mm ƒ2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm ƒ2.8 VRI which was $1000 more at the time. Would I like a Nikon 70-200mm ƒ2.8 VRII? You betcha, but at $2200 --only when the Siggy bites the dust. LOL


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> The truth is that 99.99% could never tell the difference between my Sigma 70-200mm ƒ2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm ƒ2.8 VRI which was $1000 more at the time. Would I like a Nikon 70-200mm ƒ2.8 VRII? You betcha, but at $2200 --only when the Siggy bites the dust. LOL


There ya go... "One in the hand is worth two in the bush"... IMO


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> The truth is that 99.99% could never tell the difference between my Sigma 70-200mm ƒ2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm ƒ2.8 VRI which was $1000 more at the time.


Perhaps not under professional conditions. Stick both those lenses on a D3* body, 100% crop shot NEF, I'll tell you every time which is which as would most professionals who earn their living with their lenses. Not trying to be an ass, but comparing those two lenses under professional use is ludicrous, and that's mostly what I'm referring to. I'm not just saying this because I'm some Nikon/Canon fanatic. I've used that Sigma lens, many years ago when I was starting out. It simply could not hold up, build quality and image quality wasn't/isn't there. It's not a professional high grade lens.



Have to admit I haven't really looked at what Zeiss does these days, I have heard the from friends the ZF are nice though. 

I have some I used on my RZ67 and they're used for shooting artwork mainly. In saying that I'd love to screw a Planar 55 f1.2 onto my F5 one day, compare it to the 85 1.4.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> ...You want a 50 mm like the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G ....


Couldn't agree more. This, is a NICE lens! Beautiful bokeh, but also really good, classic (timeless) images.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

Here's my 2 cents on nikon lenses vs. sigma lenses. Generally i prefer nikon lenses for most of the line up. Sigma does have some great lenses such as the 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and 17-50 OS.

Sigma lenses are fine for most people. It really depends on what you want. For example. The sigma 85 1.4 is sharper wide open, has less CA, cost less, has a 10 year warranty. The nikon 85 1.4 has better flare control, better contrast, more accurate focusing, but cost more. So is one better than the other? Yes, of course. However it depends on what you want out of the lens. Its up to the individual to decide whats better for their own usage.

Another example i have. I tested the nikon 70-200vr2, sigma non-os 70-200, sigma 70-200 OS. The two sigma's performed very close in all aspects. However, i personally wouldn't invest in a 70-200 without VR/OS. I shoot handheld 99% of the time. Anyways, i found the nikon version to be better in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, AF speed, AF accuracy, Low light AF speed/accuracy, build quality, and the VR was about 1 stop better. At 200mm, i could shoot the nikon at 1/20 to 1/30 shutter speed, with the sigma OS, i could do about 1/50 to 1/60 shutter speed. Overall, i thought the nikon was well worth the price difference, due to the overall package, not just in terms of sharpness (even though the nikon was sharper).

I do prefer my nikon (oem) lenses, but would consider a third party lens if it was comparable. Two sigma lenses i would buy, are the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.4. I have owned the sigma 50 1.4 before, and it was a fantastic lens, but i couldn't get used to the focal length.

Also, i'd like state that sharpness should not just be the only deciding factor when deciding on a lens. There is so much more than just sharpness.


----------

