Completely Changing My Gear Line-Up by Next Spring

iflynething

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
You can see what I have in my signature.

Bodies:
D3
D300

Primes:
28 2.8
50 1.8
Sigma 150 2.8 Macro

Zooms:
24-70
70-200


For the most part, I am happy but I would like to change my line up almost completely.

Body Changes:
-Add either another D3 or D700. Honestly, I wish I could afford the D3x, soely to use as a crop body and still have 12mp. Yes, spending $8,000 is out of the question but I can dream. I would like to add another FF body just to have consistent results. I come to this reasoning because while shooting football, I can't mount my 24-70 on my D300 and have the 70-200 on D3 and expect the same results at ISO 3200, it's just not going to happen.

-or-

Add another crop body, the D300s. I would love to have video on a DSLR. Just like the 85 described below, some people hate it and some people love it. I love it. Very useful. If a D700s came out and had the same performance and just added video, I'd be the first to get it.

Prime Changes:
-Sell the 50 1.8 and get the Sigma 1.4. I LOVE the 3D effect the D3 does to pictures with a super narrow depth of field. Honestly, I don't use the 50 that often but I think I might if I had 1.4.....

-Back and forth about selling the 28 2.8 since I have the 24-70. By ABSOLUTLY NO NO NO NO mean in the entire world will I EVER see a 24-70 at 28mm and f/2.8 as sharp as the 28mm, yet, I don't use it as often.

Zoom Changes:

Not really a big change.
-Possibly sell the 70-200 for a VRII version (wouldn't cost too much to upgrade)
-Get a 85 1.4 for portraits. I don't need the G. Too much and I'm not following the bandwagon. For portraits, speed is not needed.
-Add a Nikon 14-24 (some people hate it, some people swear by it)



I'm happy with my 70-200 yet I'd like to have better IQ at 2.8 which I sometimes shoot at.

What do you think?



~Michael~
 
Depends what you want to shoot with this new gear, or how you'd like your new kit to be optimized. A few thoughts. First, by next year, a D400 and or a D4 might be on the market, and the D700's replacement is expected to be here Quarter 1-2011. SO.....there's that.

14-24: big, wide,heavy,no filters, poor range for people work. But wide! And very sharp. The 28-70 AF-S at 28mm and f/2.8 is about as good as a 28mm AF-D Nikkor, maybe a tad bit better. The 24-70 AF-S G NIkkor IS better than the 28/2.8 AF-D Nikkor.The 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S with CrC is probably the best 28mm standard-speed Nikkor, especially close-in. 50mm on FF to me is "ehhhh." Take it or leave it. The 24mm f/1.4 AF-S G is one lens that can do shallow depth of field at wide-angle, and has nice bokeh...expensive, but a pretty imager,and significantly expands what's possible at wide apertures and unlike competing lenses, is mostly free of coma wide-open, so it's usable at night where there are bright lights and point light sources, like fireworks, Las Vegas, nighttime skies with stars,etc.

The new 70-200 VR-II seems to be better at f/2.8 than the 2003 model I own....so, yeah, the VR-II makes sense as an update for a FF body.

I agree on the 85-G...I'm not on the bandwagon on that one either. I'm keeping the AF-D model I own, it's a known quantity, plus, I like the f/stop ring it has. if I wanted all-gelded G-series lenses, well, Canon has those...

As for another crop body--it's possible that the image quality and autofocusing in the new D7000 will be as good, or better, than that from the D300 or D300s...we shall see. The D7000 might be a good option, very affordable; let's see how the new AF tracking system and 2,000+ area color-aware metering works in practice. By the time you are ready to buy, the D400 might also be near market or on the market.
 
I would get longer lenses if you shoot football 300F2.8 or 400F2.8, i would have thought 200mm is no where long enough
 
Depends what you want to shoot with this new gear, or how you'd like your new kit to be optimized. A few thoughts. First, by next year, a D400 and or a D4 might be on the market, and the D700's replacement is expected to be here Quarter 1-2011. SO.....there's that.

14-24: big, wide,heavy,no filters, poor range for people work. But wide! And very sharp. The 28-70 AF-S at 28mm and f/2.8 is about as good as a 28mm AF-D Nikkor, maybe a tad bit better. The 24-70 AF-S G NIkkor IS better than the 28/2.8 AF-D Nikkor.The 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S with CrC is probably the best 28mm standard-speed Nikkor, especially close-in. 50mm on FF to me is "ehhhh." Take it or leave it. The 24mm f/1.4 AF-S G is one lens that can do shallow depth of field at wide-angle, and has nice bokeh...expensive, but a pretty imager,and significantly expands what's possible at wide apertures and unlike competing lenses, is mostly free of coma wide-open, so it's usable at night where there are bright lights and point light sources, like fireworks, Las Vegas, nighttime skies with stars,etc.

The new 70-200 VR-II seems to be better at f/2.8 than the 2003 model I own....so, yeah, the VR-II makes sense as an update for a FF body.

I agree on the 85-G...I'm not on the bandwagon on that one either. I'm keeping the AF-D model I own, it's a known quantity, plus, I like the f/stop ring it has. if I wanted all-gelded G-series lenses, well, Canon has those...

As for another crop body--it's possible that the image quality and autofocusing in the new D7000 will be as good, or better, than that from the D300 or D300s...we shall see. The D7000 might be a good option, very affordable; let's see how the new AF tracking system and 2,000+ area color-aware metering works in practice. By the time you are ready to buy, the D400 might also be near market or on the market.

-14-24:
So I have heard. I sometimes do landscapes and that would be a bad thing. I only use a polarizer usually, havne't got big into filters. I just do what I can with what I have.

-70-200:
That's why I would want to upgrade is for the higher IQ at 2.8. I like the shallow DOF and like I said, the 3D effect when used on FF. I usually can still get this effect up to f/4-5.6. I don't see this as an expensive upgrade and this is why I would like to go to this. It would be a couple hundred dollars.

-85
This is just the lens to have. I would like the IQ mainly and the focal length is good both on DX and FF.

-Body
I am not familiar with the D7000. A D700s would be nice, as well as a D400, maybe a DX body with similar ISO capabilities as a D700 or D3, I just want consistency. Between the two. Ideally, I don't want to have to worry about what body I'm picking from my shoulder.

I would get longer lenses if you shoot football 300F2.8 or 400F2.8, i would have thought 200mm is no where long enough

I'm not willing to spend $5,000 on a Nikon 300 2.8 but have considered the Sigma for $3,000. I have heard nice thing about it. I will be doing the research over the next couple of months.


~Michael~
 
If the move from 70-200mm VR1 to70-200mm VR2 is anything like it is for canon at the moment I would say certainly sell and upgrade to the VR2 if you want to really push image quality at wide open. Also for your sports work you could consider a 1.4TC and even a 2*TC (Nikons new 2*TC and 70-200mm VR2 appears to perform very well considering the setup and it would at least give you a very usable quality whilst saving for the higher priced prime). You could even consider a 1.7TC for that little bit more range than the 1.4,but with less of an image quality hit than the 2*TC.

Also the no filters part on the wide angle zoom is slightly incorrect now that Lee have a dedicated larger range of filters and filter holders coming out for the new wider angle lenses - starting with the Nikon.

The only other thing I would say is don't forget your 150mm sigma is getting an upgraded version with OS - even if it just stabalizes the viewfinder at macro distances that would certainly be something and the OS would certainly be a boon for regular telephoto work with the lens - as well as optical, af and other possible improvements (we can't really tell till it hits the market and the reviews start coming in)
 
If the move from 70-200mm VR1 to70-200mm VR2 is anything like it is for canon at the moment I would say certainly sell and upgrade to the VR2 if you want to really push image quality at wide open. Also for your sports work you could consider a 1.4TC and even a 2*TC (Nikons new 2*TC and 70-200mm VR2 appears to perform very well considering the setup and it would at least give you a very usable quality whilst saving for the higher priced prime). You could even consider a 1.7TC for that little bit more range than the 1.4,but with less of an image quality hit than the 2*TC.

Also the no filters part on the wide angle zoom is slightly incorrect now that Lee have a dedicated larger range of filters and filter holders coming out for the new wider angle lenses - starting with the Nikon.

The only other thing I would say is don't forget your 150mm sigma is getting an upgraded version with OS - even if it just stabalizes the viewfinder at macro distances that would certainly be something and the OS would certainly be a boon for regular telephoto work with the lens - as well as optical, af and other possible improvements (we can't really tell till it hits the market and the reviews start coming in)

There is a big difference in sharpness as well as vignetting on FF cameras.

I probably won't upgrade to OS on the Sigma for a while unless it was a great deal, I just bought it last week.

~Michael~
 
Look for a used 300/2.8 AF-S, preferably the Mark II model that was released just before the first VR version...that is a sweet lens, with a magnesium alloy barrel, so it is the lightest of the 300 2.8's, and it also has an aperture ring on it, and it is quite sharp,and has a very close minimum focusing distance. Those are available used for $2,500 to $3,000 with careful shopping. AF is very fast and sure on this lens.
 
I believe the camera store I go to has one they rent out. Actually looks older than just an AF-S version...

I may have to rent it for a week and just mess around while football is in full swing.

~Michael~
 
It might be the AF-i version, which is worth a lot less (like $500 less), in my estimation. Sometimes the price on big glass like that is very reasonable, especially if it is being sold on commission, since the store will take 17 to 20 percent off of "whatever they can get", thus making them rather motivated to sell at lower prices just to generate something from basically nothing. Go here to figure out when the lens was made, based on serial number Nikon Lens Serial Nos
 
It was definitly AF-S, I'm thinking of the local newspaper that might have the AF-i

I'll check the serial next time I"m at the store and see what I can figure out and how much the rental period is. I'd love to rent it for a week!

~Michael~
 

Most reactions

Back
Top