Decisions, decisions...

[Netskimmer]

I'm contemplating a break with traditional wisdom. I have been looking at a 24-70 lens and the new Nikon D750. Conventional wisdom says glass first, camera later, and I usually follow that. I'm still shooting with the D7000 I bought when I started getting serious about photography and it has served me well. Before I go into why I'm thinking of getting the camera instead of the lens, let me explain why I'm looking at them both.

I love my D7000 and I don't think it really limits me in any significant way, but I do think I would benefit from the D750. A lot of my photography takes place with horses and is often in low light. I'm not comfortable with using a flash near strange horses so I have to rely on my lens'/camera's inherent ability to grab light and push the ISO. The Larger sensor and higher ISO capabilities of the D750 would really come in handy. It's also slightly faster with it's 6.5 fps vs my D7000's 6 fps but I don't usually seem to need that anyway.

The reason I have been looking at the 24-70 is that my 70-200 is a little tight when used as a walk around lens, or when I'm taking pics of the horses/riders outside of the ring but the 17-50 is a bit short for my tastes. I prefer to be back a bit and not be under-foot er, hoof. The 24-70 seems like a good compromise.

The reason I'm thinking of getting the camera instead of the lens is that while my 70-200 is a little tight for my tastes, that is on a 1.6 crop sensor. On a full frame camera that might not be the case. Also, if I had two cameras, I could leave the 17-50 on one and put the 70-200 on the other and not have to switch lenses.

I could still get the lens at a later date, if I wanted. What do you guys think?

 

[goodguy]

Get the D750 and dont look back!!!

If tight on cash get for the short term an used Nikon 24-85mm, excellent lens with only draw back is that its slower then the 24-70mm
When you have enough cash sell it and get the 24-70mm 2.8

 

[tirediron]

I think: "You're talking about buying more gear; WHERE is there a downside?"

 

[Lucryster]

Id recommend the tamron 24-70 instead of the nikon version, its a better lens.

 

[pixmedic]

while normally i would tend to agree to get lens over camera, in this particular case, and especially with you already having a 70-200, I think you would get more bang for the buck out of a D750. as much as I love my D600, i would love to have a D750. Get the D750, throw the 70-200 on it, and get a mid range tele-zoom later.

 

[Netskimmer]

Id recommend the tamron 24-70 instead of the nikon version, its a better lens.

Yeah, I have decided if I go with the 24-70 now or in the future, I'll probably go with the Tamron.

Thanks pixmedic, I mostly just wanted to make sure my logic seemed sound.

I guess now I need to decide if I want to get one now or wait until they have fixed the whole flare issue.

 

[goodguy]

I guess now I need to decide if I want to get one now or wait until they have fixed the whole flare issue.

Flare issue is gone!
Flare issue is history!
Flare issue has been addressed and fixed by Nikon!

All D750 on shelves were recalled and fixed, now all current stock is flare free!
Buy your new D750 with confident, know you are getting what I consider currently best general use camera for the money.

 

[goodguy]

Id recommend the tamron 24-70 instead of the nikon version, its a better lens.

For the money the Tamron is a good buy and a very valid choice but I wouldnt call it better then the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
They are very close and when it comes to value for money then the Tamron might be considered as a better value for money but it is not better or superior to the Nikon.

 

[Lucryster]

Id recommend the tamron 24-70 instead of the nikon version, its a better lens.

For the money the Tamron is a good buy and a very valid choice but I wouldnt call it better then the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G
They are very close and when it comes to value for money then the Tamron might be considered as a better value for money but it is not better or superior to the Nikon.

Its sharper, and has vr.

 

[Netskimmer]

Every review I've come across says they are very close with each one performing better than the other in certain situations and when one does beat the other, it's not by much. Given that the Tamron is about $600 cheaper it seems like a good choice. I'm not a bad photographer but I doubt I am good enough to push the limits of either of them on a regular basis.

Still fighting with my brain. It keeps telling me "you don't need more equipment, it's just a hobby, you don't spend enough time on it to justify all that. Stupid brain.

 

[Derrel]

Switching from a 1.5x body to a FF body changes **everything** with regard to lens focal length, and how and when and where zoom lenses work best. For example in a horse arena (I've been in maybe six different ones) or other defined/confined area, on a 1.5x or 1.6x body, the 70-200 zoom lens is very,very often "too tight" on the bottom end. In smaller rooms, like living rooms, or smaller outdoor spaces, like say a back yard barbeque or birthday party event, the 70-200 on a 1.5x body is wayyyyyy too long a lens until you're about 25 to 40 feet away. But---once that lens is mounted on a FF body, the usefulness of the lens goes up; it's no longer necessary to constantly switch out to a shorter lens to capture normal events, and normal shots.

If you already have a 70-200, the best way to make the lens more useful for social photography situations is to...mount it on a full-frame Nikon body. Any of them. D3, D3s, D700, D600,D610, whatever. Same goes for a 24-70, same for a 50mm, same for a 24mm, same for a 35mm, same for an 85mm; all those lens lengths were developed over many decades for use on 24 x 36m sized capture media.

I'm not saying FF or FX (Nikon-speak) is "better", but FF makes a lot exisiting lens lengths and a lot of common zoom lens ranges "just work better" in typical places, at normal distances. In living rooms, back yards, offices, in public at street events, whatever--that 1.5x FOV narrowing makes a lot of zooms simply "too tight" in their field of view when you want to shoot from the normal locations, and when you want to fit in with the typical seating/spectator areas.

 

[ronlane]

I would go with the 750 and see where you are with the 70-200mm. When I rented a full frame a week ago, I was amazed at the difference that ff made on my 70-200mm f/4. Instead of not being able to get wide enough, I was having an issue of not being able to get close enough (well as close as I was used to with a dx).

 

[Netskimmer]

To heck with what my brain says, all it ever does is get me into trouble anyways. I'll grab a D750. I'll be away from the house for a few days and the D750 is on backorder at both Adorama and B&H, so I'll have to wait until next week to get it.

 

[ronlane]

Oh, as for the light leak issue. From what I've seen and read, just look for a black dot inside the tripod mounting hole. The fixed ones are said to have it.

DSC 0961-2 Flickr - Photo Sharing

DSC 0973 Flickr - Photo Sharing

 

[Netskimmer]

Cool, I'll have to look for that when I get one.