Which glass for forthcomming camera

[roadkill]

Within the next six months or so I am planning on upgrading to a D700 or possibly a D3 (a stretch). With the full frame sensor, if I buy glass before I get the camera, is there any I should stay away from?

 

[JerryPH]

The list of what glass to stay away from is WAY longer than the glass that you should get.

A camera like the D700 or D3 deserves nothing but the best. Period. Obvious things like no DX lenses is common sense, "Gold Ring" Nikkor lenses is all that I put on my D700. I don't bother with 3rd party lenses at this level. They were OK for the D200, but not on the D700 where one should be serious about getting the best they can from the camera.

Expect to spend as a minimum a 1:1 ratio of camera to lens costs... and thats just for a start. Meaning, if you put $3000 into the camera, your budget should be at least $3000 for lenses too. It is easy to meet that ratio with 2 lenses:
- 14-24
- 24-70

If you have the budget, add the 70-200 and a few nice primes in there like the 50mm F/1.4G and the 85mm F/1.4D, also known as "the cream machine". If I had $10,000 to spend, even *with* all that I currently own now, I would still not have enough for all that I wanted. At this level, this is where things get financially serious... lol

 

[Overread]

Glass you should avoid is glass that you don't have a use for.
If you have a use for a lens then go for it - and since your looking at a fullframe camera take this into account and make sure glass you get is not crop sensor only. Further, as Jerry said, try to stick to the highest standard of lens you can afford - good glass really makes a lot of difference and has a massive impact on the quality of shots you can get -- a good camera body with rubbish glass will still give substandard results - good glass on a low end camera body can give pro standard results.

Also as for the 3rd party comment, one cannot lable the whole 3rd party market with a single coverall description. Yes there are lenses in the 3rd party market which are substandard to the offical nikon/canon offerings, and often its only the fact that htey are more affordable that they sell.
However I would say that there are specific 3rd party lenses which are equal to the optical quality of pro nikon and canon glass - take the sigma line of macro prime lenses (don't you have 105mm macro sigma Jerry?) 70mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro - heck the sigma 180mm macro is often chosen instead of the canon because its lighter, gives equal optical quality and is a lot cheaper; and the other offerings are just as sharp (With the 70mm reportadly one of sigma's sharpest lenses)

 

[gsgary]

Don't get the 70-200 bad vignette on the D3 not sure about the D700, most D3 owners have changed to the 80-200

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

I agree if you are looking for a zoom in the 70-200 range get the 80-200 2.8 rather than the 70-200 VR. It all depends on what your shoot but if you are spending the money on the camera you are wasting your money if you don't buy pro glass.

 

[andrew99]

However I would say that there are specific 3rd party lenses which are equal to the optical quality of pro nikon and canon glass - take the sigma line of macro prime lenses (don't you have 105mm macro sigma Jerry?) 70mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro - heck the sigma 180mm macro is often chosen instead of the canon because its lighter, gives equal optical quality and is a lot cheaper; and the other offerings are just as sharp (With the 70mm reportadly one of sigma's sharpest lenses)

When talking about 3rd part lenses, you only mention sharpness. What about focus speed and accuracy, colour accuracy, contrast, metering, chromatic abboration, weather sealing, build quality, resale value? There's a lot of reasons people are willing to spend extra for the manufactures own lenses.

 

[Overread]

True - generally 3rd party don't have weathersealing aspects to them - the other aspects can be equal or differing to the offical lenses (things like contrast are rather subjective though). Resale value is always a tricky area - my view is that if you buy a pro end first party or 3rd party bit of glass reselling should not be at the fore of your mind - using it should be! If you have to come to part with the glass though things like canon L are going to hold their value better generally, but that does not mean 3rdparty are going to rockbottom.

Again its a lens by lens thing - many people experience 3rd party in teh form of something like a sigma 70-300mm APO macro lens - a cheap lens that offers a lot for its price but is not really master of anything (barring flower photography ). Its not going to win awards and it is noticably softer at the long end - and apertures like f8 are better than wide open - where again its soft.
This is very different to things like (sorry I have to keep on about the macro, but its the only "good" 3rdparty lenses that I have experience of using) sigma macro primes which are offering you just as much (mostly)as the offical ones.
Also the new 50mm f1.4 from sigma is a lens that is turning some heads as well - again they can make good optics so don't discount them entirly

 

[Lyncca]

The list of what glass to stay away from is WAY longer than the glass that you should get.

A camera like the D700 or D3 deserves nothing but the best. Period. Obvious things like no DX lenses is common sense, "Gold Ring" Nikkor lenses is all that I put on my D700. I don't bother with 3rd party lenses at this level. They were OK for the D200, but not on the D700 where one should be serious about getting the best they can from the camera.

Expect to spend as a minimum a 1:1 ratio of camera to lens costs... and thats just for a start. Meaning, if you put $3000 into the camera, your budget should be at least $3000 for lenses too. It is easy to meet that ratio with 2 lenses:
- 14-24
- 24-70

If you have the budget, add the 70-200 and a few nice primes in there like the 50mm F/1.4G and the 85mm F/1.4D, also known as "the cream machine". If I had $10,000 to spend, even *with* all that I currently own now, I would still not have enough for all that I wanted. At this level, this is where things get financially serious... lol

Gosh, that just made me fall in love with my D300 crop-sensor even more :heart:

 

[JerryPH]

Don't get the 70-200 bad vignette on the D3 not sure about the D700, most D3 owners have changed to the 80-200

lol... I guess everyone has different opinions of what "bad vignette" is, but if you want an example, try a 70-200 on ANY FX SENSOR... they *all* have vignette (not just Nikon, but Canon too!). Not that this matters, becuase this is easily addressed in post in under 3 seconds or what more people do, is even increase the effect.

As far as sensor and image quality, the D700 is identical to the D3. BTW, the 80-200 will vignette 100% the same amount as a 70-200 on a D700. Why would I know this? I tested it out myself and saw the results, so it is not hear-say.

 

[JerryPH]

Gosh, that just made me fall in love with my D300 crop-sensor even more :heart:

Well, not too many people put bicycle tires on their Ferrari, and if you are playing at this level, that is what you definitely should not be doing.

 

[Joves]

lol... I guess everyone has different opinions of what "bad vignette" is, but if you want an example, try a 70-200 on ANY FX SENSOR... they *all* have vignette (not just Nikon, but Canon too!). Not that this matters, becuase this is easily addressed in post in under 3 seconds or what more people do, is even increase the effect.

As far as sensor and image quality, the D700 is identical to the D3. BTW, the 80-200 will vignette 100% the same amount as a 70-200 on a D700. Why would I know this? I tested it out myself and saw the results, so it is not hear-say.

I agree any wide range zoom will vignette at their longest on an FX sensor. You either choose to crop it out or live with it. Im sure my 80-400 will do it on an FX sensor. But when I do finally get a D700 it will be my wide camera anyhow and, my D300 will be for long shots. They both have their strengths in each area. Also why not get the D700 and have much more money for glass.

 

[djacobox372]

Hmmm... while I agree with most of the sentiment here, BUT it should be noted that a larger sensor is more forgiving of lens quality--when you are cropping out a smaller portion of a photos, poor lens performance is amplified.

 

[JerryPH]

Also why not get the D700 and have much more money for glass.

I totally agree. I know of 2 "lower end" local wedding photographers that literally returned their D3s and picked up two D700s in their place (same company, 2 partners).

Also, budget was already mentioned as being a factor...why pay $2000 more when budget is an issue and no consideration to budget for lenses was even thought of?

What about things that I would consider important accessories for the D700, like:
- MB-D10 grip? (better balance, more battery life, increase to 7FPS with the right batteries)

- EN-EL4a batteries and extra charger?

- you DEFINITELY need a neoprene neck strap with this camera... or walk around in pain after 1 hour of this monster hanging from your neck. I quickly changed my neckstrap from the D200 to the D700 after my first time using the grip and the 70-200 lens after just 2 hours... I had neck pain for 2 days from it!

- extra 8GB CF UDMA cards. I would consider 8GB the minimum size to use with this camera. At a maximum quality of 14-bit uncompressed RAW, 8GB will give you a meagre 320 pics per card! If you shoot RAW+JPG, significantly less (I only shoot RAW, never JPG). Now, you could use lower quality, but again... if you are not going to use the highest quality components and settings, why have this level of camera in the first place?