Gear suggestions.

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

All right, so here it goes.

I'm looking into new lenses/a new body.

First, I'll list what I currently have.

(All are Nikon, unless otherwise noted.)

D300s+grip
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX AF-S VR II
24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S
105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro-Nikkor
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR
50mm f/1.8D AF
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (DX)

What I'm looking into:

70-200 f/2.8G ED AF-S VR II (this one is definite)
17-35 f/2.8D EF-IF AF-S
50mm f/1.4G
D700 (I know a refresh is due soon, but I'd really like the high ISO for indoor wedding/commercial shoots sooner rather than later. If I get it, I'll sell it when the refresh comes out.)

Open to any and all suggestions. I know once I go FX, some of my lenses won't be worth much (though I'll keep the D300s for backup and occasionally wildlife if I need it).

Other thoughts:

-I'd prefer the 17-35 f/2.8 to the new 16-35 f/4 VR. I think a wider aperture is more important than VR. Am I wrong?

-I know that the 17-35 2.8, the 70-200 2.8, and a 50 1.8 or 1.4 is a photojournalist's ideal trio, and as I travel a lot, I figure it would make sense for me to carry those around instead of other lenses. Also, I know my 24-70 will perform better on a FX camera--I've just been buying full frame in anticipation since I figured out the difference.

-I'd love the 14-24 2.8, but it's more expensive, bigger, heavier, and doesn't take your standard filter. I'm not going to delve into the big square filters at this point, so I'm just not sure about it. Maybe eventually.

So, all of that said, what are some recommendations from people who own (and use!) these lenses? You can look at my site for examples of what I shoot a lot. I may also be getting some commercial gigs that involve traveling. Without assistants. Or much lighting.

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

Anyone?

Derrel · Oct 25, 2010

Well...if you want a D700, I'd say buy one. Maybe even a used one, since you plan on selling it once there's a refresh of the model.

You might want to keep the 70-300VR as a lighter, more-portable alternative to the 70-200/2.8 for lighter weight and easier carrying. I can understand going with the 17-35 as opposed to the 14-24, due to size and weight and range considerations; 14 to 24mm is very wide...and not very long. The 14-24 might in fact, be too wide for the way many people see things,whereas the 17-35mm range spans wide to semi-wide and actually has a broader range in terms of being able to create "different looks". 14-24mm is ultra-wide, for the most part...it might not be your cup of tea.

A wider aperture lens can be pretty useful. VR can also be useful. Depends on what your priorities are.

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

Thanks for the ideas. Yeah, I'd love the 14-24 at some point--from what I hear it's phenomenal--but have some other priorities to take care of first.

kundalini · Oct 25, 2010

Your focal lengths are covered, but you don't mention any lighting gear. Just sayin'......

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

I don't really do any studio shoots, but I do have an SB-600, two LumoPro LP160s, a couple of stands, three pocket wizards, two shoot through white umbrellas and a silver reflector. It gets me by for now. Most of my stuff is done with natural light unless I need the strobes.

djacobox372 · Oct 25, 2010

You may want to consider an 80-200mm f2.8 AFS instead, you'll save yourself $1000, and I'm not convinced that VR is that important on an f2.8 200mm lens--especially on a d700 where you can shoot iso 800 with almost no loss in IQ.

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

I've considered the 80-200 heavily...but since it won't break the bank if I get the 70-200, and from what I hear the optical quality is a whole lot better, I've got my heart set on it. In fact, I just looked at it again, and came to the same conclusion.

Thanks for the opinions guys--keep 'em comin'. Any more ideas on the 17-35 for a wide zoom?

bentcountershaft · Oct 25, 2010

I don't know how important having 2.8 over 4.0 on a wide angle would be to me. Unless you're wanting to capture close up action I think I'd go for the 16-35 f4. For landscapes/architecture being fast doesn't matter. That's just me though.

ironsidephoto · Oct 25, 2010

That's what I was thinking, but then again, aren't most lenses their sharpest a couple of stops up from their max aperture? So, in theory, I could shoot the f/2.8 lens at f/4 and have it be sharper than the f/4 lens at f/4. does that make sense? VR won't help for landscapes/architectural either, as i'd mostly be using a tripod for such shots. action is the limitation, i believe, which is where i think the f/2.8 would be beneficial.

bentcountershaft · Oct 25, 2010

Yeah, if you think you'd be using it occasionally for low light action like a concert or whatnot, then the 2.8 is really the only way to go. Of course one other thing to consider, if you go full frame your 24-70 is going to be a lot wider than it is now and you may be able to capture close up action with it just fine. As far as sharpness down from max aperture, with landscapes and such you'll probably be at least f/8-f/11 anyway so I would think it's kind of a wash. If in doubt go with the 2.8 though. If you need fast then you need fast.

Josh220 · Nov 1, 2010

Do some research between the 17-35 vs 16-35 lenses. I can tell you haven't based on your assumptions.

The 16-35 absolutely destroys the 17-35 in optics, hence why it was the 17-35's replacement. Even at f/4 the 16-35 is miles ahead.

shaunly · Nov 1, 2010

go with a D700 and pick up a 70/80-200 f/2.8. It'll open the door to a whole new world. I went from a D90 when it first came out and now a D700. Let me tell you... It's such a pleasure shooting that I honestly don't even worry about body upgrades. A D800 can be release tomorrow and I wouldn't care. The only limitation are my skills and not the camera.

MrLogic · Nov 1, 2010

Josh220 said:
Do some research between the 17-35 vs 16-35 lenses. I can tell you haven't based on your assumptions.

The 16-35 absolutely destroys the 17-35 in optics, hence why it was the 17-35's replacement. Even at f/4 the 16-35 is miles ahead.

It may "destroy" the 17-35 in optics, but it was not meant to replace it. The 16-35 is mostly targeted at amateur FX (D700) shooters. The build quality, while better than the 28-300, is not up to Nikon pro f/2.8 zoom quality - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR II. (Not to mention the older pro zooms, like the 17-35.)

The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is available next month, by the way. I wouldn't be surprised if it beat out the 16-35 f/4 in image quality.

shaunly · Nov 1, 2010

MrLogic said:
Josh220 said:

Do some research between the 17-35 vs 16-35 lenses. I can tell you haven't based on your assumptions.

The 16-35 absolutely destroys the 17-35 in optics, hence why it was the 17-35's replacement. Even at f/4 the 16-35 is miles ahead.

Click to expand...

It may "destroy" the 17-35 in optics, but it was not meant to replace it. The 16-35 is mostly targeted at amateur FX (D700) shooters. The build quality, while better than the 28-300, is not up to Nikon pro f/2.8 zoom quality - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR II. (Not to mention the older pro zooms, like the 17-35.)

The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is available next month, by the way. I wouldn't be surprised if it beat out the 16-35 f/4 in image quality.

The only way this Tokina could be better than the Nikon 16-35 is for it to have NO distortion and is just as sharp all the way to extreme corners. That would be a huge accomplishment for Tokina and would make it par with the legendary Nikon 14-24. It's not going to be easy though, the 16-35 is sharper than primes. The only issue it has is somewhat high distortion at 16mm and extreme corners are a little soft, but that's why it's a $1100 lens and not $1800 like the 14-24.