| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2011 11:40:18 PM · #1 |
| D700 is awesome, enjoy! I wish I had the flow for that... but I spent it on my beloved 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII :) |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 11:36:35 PM · #2 |
| if you like filters look at 17-35 afs |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 11:30:45 PM · #3 |
whoops thanks for that ok scratch the 17-55
Ive been quoted $6800 for the D700 the 14-24 2.8 & the 24-70 2.8
If the 14-24 doesn't take a filter can you use a coken P series on it? or is the problem that it doesn't have any thread on the front at all? |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 11:11:48 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
Im Looking at the
Nikon 17-55 2.8 ( $2129 )
&
Nikon 14-24 2.8 ( $2327 )
But each are expensive + the D700 body ( $2735 ) a scary prospect
Is there anything in a sigma/ tamron that would be as good but cheaper?
Actually thinking about it the 17mm on a full frame would be almost as wide as the 10-20 on my D200. So perhaps I need the 17-55 & something longer |
Why would you look at 17-55 ? that is a DX
you can do whatever you like with your money but for Nikon, FX "holy trinity" is 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8
salmiakki just beat me about 17-55
only problem can be if you like to use filters on wide glass (14-24 does not take filters)
Message edited by author 2011-08-28 23:13:52. |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 11:08:23 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
Nikon 17-55 2.8 ( $2129 )
&
Nikon 14-24 2.8 ( $2327 )
But each are expensive + the D700 body ( $2735 ) a scary prospect
Is there anything in a sigma/ tamron that would be as good but cheaper?
Actually thinking about it the 17mm on a full frame would be almost as wide as the 10-20 on my D200. So perhaps I need the 17-55 & something longer |
But the 17-55 is a DX lens so it will only work as a DX on the full frame, I can't see the point in getting that lens at all for a full frame camera. This lens is the equivalent of a 24-70 really in full frame terms. ETA. I have the 17-55 and it's been one of my most used lenses on the D300.
I would say the 14-24 is the only way to go if you want the benefits of having the full frame.
Message edited by author 2011-08-28 23:10:30. |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 10:08:32 PM · #6 |
| Somewhere around a 20mm prime and a 50mm prime each with the lowest f# you can afford. |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 10:04:36 PM · #7 |
Im Looking at the
Nikon 17-55 2.8 ( $2129 )
&
Nikon 14-24 2.8 ( $2327 )
But each are expensive + the D700 body ( $2735 ) a scary prospect
Is there anything in a sigma/ tamron that would be as good but cheaper?
Actually thinking about it the 17mm on a full frame would be almost as wide as the 10-20 on my D200. So perhaps I need the 17-55 & something longer |
|
|
|
08/28/2011 08:46:17 PM · #8 |
I've decided to go for the D700, I just don't want to wait for an upgrade to a D800 one day...
Of my lenses
the
Sigma 10- 20mm f/3.5 EX-DC HSM
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR
Work but are restricted
& my
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon
Work but are perhaps under powered for this camera.
I use the 10-20 daily so that is a must replace, but the 70-300 just collects dust. I'll be keeping the D200 so it may get some use.
The 17-50 is my next most used lens.
What should I get to replace the 10-20 & perhaps the 17-50?
Steven |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/29/2024 04:56:41 AM EDT.
