Nikon 50mm 1.4d + Nikon 70-300mm vr, orrr Sigma 50-500mm OS

[Be Easy]

Hello everyone and anyone,

I want to thank you ahead of time to anyone who adds a comment or replies to this because this is a hard question iv been unsuccessfully been trying to answer myself, and this is my first post on here.

Ok, so over the past few months iv been saving up for my mac daddy cam, the big nikon d700. im goin all out getting a kit that comes with memory card, case, battery grip, all the goods. I mostly shoot surf - skate photos, and iv done a lil bit with getting some friends model for some fun posing shots. once i get the d700 i expect to do alot more model shooting but deff continue the surf and skate shots, maybe try to step it up and do a wedding or 2, and see how that goes...

Anyway, my problem is, i am at a deadlock with myself over the lense i should buy for the cam. iv come up with 2 decisions: 1. buy the nikon 50mm 1.4d + the nikon 70-300mm vr, or 2. the all in one sigma 50-500mm OS. from what i understand, all of these lenses are pretty good. im deff looking for range because of the surfing shots, but the (BIGMA) is deff a lil pricey for me. my question for all of you is, would it be worth it to save up the extra almost 800$ for the sigma, or should i go for the 2 smaller nikon lenses??? and if you have any other suggestions or whatever feel free to help me out.

Thank you again!!!
Jonny "Be Easy"

 

[flea77]

Well you have some choices to make. The D700 is a fine camera which can take some fantastic pictures when coupled with the right lens. Here are some problems....

The 50mm 1.4d is a great lens for this camera, however it is a little wide for a portrait lens, and still wider for wedding work. The quality of the images you can produce with this combination are fantastic, unfortunately the focal length is just too short. Of course this lens is worthless for skate or surf shots.

The 70-300 is an OK lens, mainly for kits. While it has the reach for portraits and weddings it does not have the speed or image quality. Putting this lens on your D700 is like putting cheap $99 a set tires on your Ferrari.

The Bigma is a fine lens for your surf shots with lots of reach. It is a really slow lens coming in at 4.5-6.3. This means again, not so useful for weddings, and for portraits I would think it would be using a chainsaw where you need a scalpel.

For portraits you need a little reach to compress the subject, something in the 70-110 range. Then you need something that can deliver excellent bokeh and a large aperture. The Nikon 85mm 1.4 is an excellent choice for this, next up would be something like a 24-70 2.8 (what I use).

For weddings you need really a couple of lenses minimum. Something reasonably wide for the areas like where the bride is getting ready (I use a 12-24), and then something to let you get the shots without being right in someone's face (I use a 80-200 2.8).

Lenses are always more expensive than the body. You will probably not be happy putting an inexpensive lens on a really nice body. I know I would not be. Typically a D60 with a really nice lens will take better pictures than a D3x with a crummy lens.

Allan

 

[Be Easy]

Thank you flea, those lenses are all extraordinary as i hear from every photographer i ask and all their reviews, but as of right now im on a tight budget thanks to the d700 being 2400 these days. i was looking for good quality lenses without breaking the bank. so should i just say screw the bigg surfing lense and just get the 24-70mm??

 

[flea77]

Thank you flea, those lenses are all extraordinary as i hear from every photographer i ask and all their reviews, but as of right now im on a tight budget thanks to the d700 being 2400 these days. i was looking for good quality lenses without breaking the bank. so should i just say screw the bigg surfing lense and just get the 24-70mm??

Somehow I missed your reply, sorry. That really depends on what you want your primary focus to be. I know what all you listed, but if you had to pick one subject and say "that" is mainly what I want to do, what would it be?

Another option would be an 85mm 1.8. From all the stuff I have read it is not as sharp as the 1.4, nor does it have the bokeh, but it is still an excellent lens and costs about 1/3 of what the 1.4 costs.

The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is an excellent lens, one of the sharpest zooms out there in its class. Two problems. First, it is expensive. Second, it is a G series lens meaning it has no aperture ring which may not matter to you but was a deal breaker for me. I opted for the Sigma 24-70 2.8 which if you get a good copy gets you about 90-95% of all the advantages of the Nikon model for a small fraction of the cost (and you get an aperture ring!).

I have a few complaints about the Sigma. First, the coating they use on the lens barrel kinda sucks, shows too much dust/dirt. Next, the lens LOVES to flare so ALWAYS use the lens hood (when I say always, I mean always, night shooting, flash shooting, don't care, lens cap comes off, lens hood goes on, no exceptions). Lastly, the lens is huge! It has an 82mm filter size. Be prepared for the expense of filters.

Now with those complaints aside, I have had excellent results with the lens. Would I trade it for a Nikon 24-70 2.8? Maybe. Would I trade it plus $1200 plus lose my aperture ring for a Nikon 24-70 2.8? Nope. I may however replace it with a set of Nikon primes later this year.

Allan