D700 or 17-55 2.8?

[Josh220]

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).

 

[Moe]

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.

 

[Josh220]

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.

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.

 

[Moe]

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.

 

[Moe]

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.

 

[Josh220]

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.

 

[djacobox372]

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.

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 $$.

 

[Josh220]

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).

 

[Moe]

Glad you resolved your problem.

 

[shaunly]

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! =)

 

[Josh220]

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

 

[AlexL]

Get the D700, I heard nothing but good from it and the jaw dropping high iso performance and low light AF.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

What you can do is sell off all your DX gear.

Sell off the D300 - $1000ish
Sell off the 12-24 - $650ish
sell off the 35 1.8 - $150ish
sell off the 18-200 - $500ish

so that leaves you with $2300 more or less by selling off what wouldn't really work with the D700.

You can get yourself the D700 for that and get the 16-35 VR for your wide stuff. all you'd really be out is about $1300ish.

 

[Josh220]

What you can do is sell off all your DX gear.

Sell off the D300 - $1000ish
Sell off the 12-24 - $650ish
sell off the 35 1.8 - $150ish
sell off the 18-200 - $500ish

so that leaves you with $2300 more or less by selling off what wouldn't really work with the D700.

You can get yourself the D700 for that and get the 16-35 VR for your wide stuff. all you'd really be out is about $1300ish.

Sounds like a good plan. Although I have not decided if I want to part with my D300 and 18-200 yet.

 

[Eco]

Do you mind posting where you buy your gear so I can buy their stock?

Not a bad thing but I think you set a record for changing bodies.