D700 or 17-55 2.8?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Josh220, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I have decided that my 24-70 is a bit restricting on my D300. I just got back from Hawaii, and I found myself only using my 18-200 and 12-24. I had always planned on going to a full frame body, hence why I purchased the 24-70. I am now wondering whether I should go ahead and upgrade to a D700, and replace my DX wide angle as well, or if I should just sell off the 24-70 and get a 17-55.

    Obviously going to FX is what is usually the goal, however I am wondering if it's worth the $2400 for the D700 and the $1800 for the 14-24 rather than just switching for the 17-55.

    The higher ISO performance would have come in very handy at the luau but shooting in low lighting is not something I do often.

    D700 + 14-24 + 24-70 or D300 + 12-24 + 17-55? (I know, the choice seems obvious. I'm just looking for some outside feedback).
     
  2. Moe

    Moe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Kauai, Hawaii
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I fail to see why you can't keep what you have. You say that FX is the goal, yet you are considering a VERY expensive DX lens. You find the 24-70 restricting, but you have a 12-24, and also an 18-200. Granted they are not as fast as the 17-55, but it covers the range. Would you miss the focal lengths more or the speed? That's something only you can decide. I say just wait it out until you are sure you want the D700. And perhaps in the meantime build up some FX lenses, starting with the 50mm 1.8, which is a necessity.
     
  3. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I am assessing what I need to do to make the 24-70 usable. Right now, I hardly use it at all (due to focal range, not speed). My original plan was to get the 70-200 before I upgraded to FX but I rented it and didn't have the urge to own it. I cannot upgrade to a wide angle FX lens until I get the FX body because it would not benefit me on a DX body. The 14-24 or 17-35 are the two that I will choose between. Both of which are not very wide on a DX sensor.

    So alas, I must decide whether I want to upgrade to FX now, or alter my lens plans. I don't want my 24-70 collecting dust, but I need that sharp mid-range zoom.

    I got the 35mm 1.8 while I am still on DX because it is sharper than the 50mm 1.8. When I do go to FX I'll get the 50mm 1.4 which is sharper than both of the 1.8 lenses. I'll be keeping my D300 as a backup body so my DX lenses will still have use.

    I feel limited by my current setup, so I feel it is time to upgrade or change to better fit how my style has evolved.
     
  4. Moe

    Moe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Kauai, Hawaii
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    With what you just said, you're kinda stuck having to buy something. I guess you need to think about how much you'll lust after an FX body after getting the 17-55 compared to buying an FX body and then having it depreciate in value, especially once a new model comes out. Just something you have to decide. Sure would be a pity to have the 24-70 just sitting around and having to buy the 17-55. I'd lean towards the D700 if it were me.
     
  5. Moe

    Moe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Kauai, Hawaii
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    There's also the option of getting a Sigma 18-50 2.8 for the D300. I have one for my D40. There are times I still miss using it. If I recall, it did pretty well against the Nikon 17-55.
     
  6. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Thanks for the info. I prefer to stick with Nikon glass though.

    I think I am going to end up getting the D700 sooner than expected. I don't want to back track and buy more DX glass.

    Then the only lens I will need to replace is my wide angle with either the 14-24 or the 17-35. I wish Nikon would come out with a new version of the 17-35, as it is very old. The ability to use filters is almost a necessity on a landscape lens for me though.

    Thanks again, discussing it always helps me realize things that seem obvious in hindsight.

    EDIT: The 16-35 may be it's replacement, though it is not a magnesium body and it is f/4 instead of 2.8.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  7. djacobox372

    djacobox372 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    id recommend a 15 or 17mm prime manual focus nikkor as your ultra wide for the d700. it would compliment your 24-70mm nicely, and for less $$.
     
  8. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I actually decided to get the new 16-35. On my D300 it will be just as wide as the 24-70 on a D700 (and even sharper). That way I can wait on the D700 until it gets upgraded which was my initial plan. When it comes out, I will already have my FX ultra-wide.

    The 16-35 is an impressive lens. It's sharper than the older 17-55. It's not even close in comparison and it even beats the 24-70 considerably. The only lens that beats it is the 14-24, which is (slightly) sharper in the corners than the 16-35. However, one benefit does not outweigh it's disadvantages (much heavier/bulkier, no filters, quite a bit more expensive, etc).
     
  9. Moe

    Moe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Kauai, Hawaii
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Glad you resolved your problem.
     
  10. shaunly

    shaunly TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Just a note... The D700 high ISO turns your F/4 into a fast F2.8 lens. Not technically but you know what I mean. Also, you can actually use your 12-24 f/4 on an FX sensor from about 19-24mm with great result.

    Go for the D700 man, you wont regret it! =)
     
  11. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Thanks guys. Definitely going for it. I will give it a little more time to see if they release any info on the D700s, but I don't want to wait too long. I want to use my 24-70 at its full potential. The 16-35 should help hold me over :D
     
  12. AlexL

    AlexL TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Get the D700, I heard nothing but good from it and the jaw dropping high iso performance and low light AF.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
14-24 vs 17-55
,
17-55 replace 35 1.8
,
17-55 nikon d700
,
d700 17-55
,
d700 17-55 2.8
,
d700 and 17-55
,
d700 on nikor 17-55mm 2.8
,

nikon 17-55 replacement

,
nikon 17-55 vs 35 1.8
,
nikon 17-55mm replacement