If you could do it all over again...

[Joves]

Me Im another i dont have regrets. Well except for when I put over 20 years worth of negatives in storage with some of my toher stuff and, the storage place burned down. I almast cried like a little girl over that.

 

[Montana]

There are two things I would have done differently.

1) Bought the Gitzo 5541LS from the get-go. Its the third or fourth tripod I have purchased and my old ones collect dust. that includes my Bogen 055MF3 carbon fiber.

2) And this is hind-sight...I would have skipped the Sigma 50-500, and gone straight for the Canon 600mm f/4 IS that I currently use. The Sigma served me well, but it was too short and too slow. Its for sale BTW. LOL

 

[Iron Flatline]

I could have gone without the 16-35mm L, and just bought the 24mm L.

Other than that I learned early on to buy the best available. Going for a lesser version just means regret later if you want to move up, or greater loss of value if you want to sell it. The better stuff makes it easier to grow, and easier to resell.

 

[JerryPH]

After making my initial purchase, joining this forum, and having nightmares where JerryPH chews me out about "research"

How could I have missed that???

That's funny!

 

[JerryPH]

Next one is probably going to be a 50mm afs and another SB-600 with a stand/bracket.

Two fast questions:
- Do you think that you will ever consider using shutter speeds above 1/250th on a studio strobe or any non-Nikon light source battery or 110-220v?

- Do you think you will use/need Pocket Wizards for your triggers?

If yes, you may want to consider making that SB-600 into a SB-800 or SB-900... because of the ability to take shots using anything like a Vivitar 285 or a Alien Bee or an Elinchrom or Profoto head or even your other SB-600s (from a distance of hundreds of feet) and syncing to your D700 at any speed between 1/60th to 1/8000th of a second becomes a reality.

I think 3 SB-600's and a 50mm would be a dynamite full body portrait/low light combination with my D700.

I'd not really call any 50mm a dynamite combo for full body shots due to the distortion that a short lens does, A 24-70 at 70mm is a nice improvement but even better... that 70-200 at 150-200mm and some extra distance (not that great a distance thanks to the FX sensor)... and now we are talking "dyn-o-mite" results.

(keeps wishing Nikon made a 24mm f/1.4L)

It would be huge, I think... at least something around the size/weight of the 50mm F/1.4G if it was in metal and not plastic. Besides, the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 likely would be so close as to make no IQ difference, and with a D700, you are no further away from matching the light sensitivity than cranking up the ISO a stop or 2. This is one of the main reasons I so enjoy my D700... the latitude it gives me to really control my lighting in so many different ways.

 

[Frequent Traveler]

I'm pleased with all the buys i've made. I bought, imho, the best and am thoroughly pleased with all of it.

Except for a 300mm telephoto, there have been a few lenses i've sold, but at either a profit or break even.

The camera bodies i haven't kept were bought as kits for a specific lens and meant to be re-sold. I still have a few that need to go.

 

[skieur]

I am not sure that I would have done anything differently. The reality is that options and choices are limited by finances, knowledge and life events during the particular period of time. Many people pick what they consider to be the best choices at the time. Different choices produce different results....not necessarily better outcomes.

skieur

 

[FrankLamont]

Why the 135mm insteadd of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS?

 

[nickisonfire]

this probably sounds stupid, but i really regret not buying a 10ft cable release, for an extra 5 bucks i could have got an addition 7feet. oh well lol

 

[McQueen278]

Why the 135mm insteadd of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS?

Weight, speed and sharpness. I just don't need the zoom or the extra 65mm in length. I thought I needed it and I was used to working with a 70-200mm zoom so i got it. I love it. It is just more than I need in some ways. I'd rather have the richer colors, speed advantage and weight/size of the 135L + 85L. It would also be nice to have a telephoto that didn't attract so much attention. Dang white paint...

 

[FrankLamont]

Oh, right.

I was panicking, after just deciding to get the 70-200mm over the 135mm for my upcoming wedding shoot.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Two fast questions:
- Do you think that you will ever consider using shutter speeds above 1/250th on a studio strobe or any non-Nikon light source battery or 110-220v?

- Do you think you will use/need Pocket Wizards for your triggers?

If yes, you may want to consider making that SB-600 into a SB-800 or SB-900... because of the ability to take shots using anything like a Vivitar 285 or a Alien Bee or an Elinchrom or Profoto head or even your other SB-600s (from a distance of hundreds of feet) and syncing to your D700 at any speed between 1/60th to 1/8000th of a second becomes a reality.

I have Profoto 600R compacts at my disposal pretty much whenever I want, and I would never want to take those on location unless I really needed the power.I would say 95% of the time i'm shooting with my speedlights, Nikon's CLS system and my SB-600's work great. PW transmitters/recievers/trancievers are not worth almost $900 to outfit a body and 3 flashes to me when I could buy 4 more SB-600's and run off my pop up flash, no way.

So the answer to If I would want to use high FP outside the Nikon system or would essentially want to spend hundreds of dollars on tools I don't need, probably not. Battery packs aren't anywhere near as portable, and I can't adjust vivitars from the camera position.

I'd not really call any 50mm a dynamite combo for full body shots due to the distortion that a short lens does, A 24-70 at 70mm is a nice improvement but even better... that 70-200 at 150-200mm and some extra distance (not that great a distance thanks to the FX sensor)... and now we are talking "dyn-o-mite" results.

For the most part, agreed. I already have an 80-200, which is what I use for the real formal head-and shoulders stuff, but for availible light, f/2.8 often still isn't fast enough, and regardless of the camera, why shoot at ISO 3200 when you can shoot at ISO 800, and get smoother bokeh at the same time. For a 50mm, a full body, head to toe, you're so far back anyway, it would look fine, you wouldn't notice distortion like you would if you were trying to do a head and shoulders shot. If it's a full body, or even a waist level-up shot just looking at the photo without another point of reference, say from a 200mm lens, it would look fine. 50mm is the same perspective (roughly) as the human eye.

the 50mm is also small, fast, sharp, and light. the 85mm f/1.4, although might make more sense, for strictly portraits, is neither small, light, or subtle, not to mention costs over $1000.

It would be huge, I think... at least something around the size/weight of the 50mm F/1.4G if it was in metal and not plastic. Besides, the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8 likely would be so close as to make no IQ difference, and with a D700, you are no further away from matching the light sensitivity than cranking up the ISO a stop or 2. This is one of the main reasons I so enjoy my D700... the latitude it gives me to really control my lighting in so many different ways.

I think it would be about the size of Canon's 24mm f/1.4L. A 24mm f/1.4 would have shallower DOF, sharper at f/2.8 compared to the 14-24, less distortion, it would be a smaller lens, so more discreet, and in availible light, again what I said earlier, why shoot at something like ISO12800 when you can shoot at ISO 3200? or instead of 1600, 400? with brighter lenses, AF works more reliably and accurately in low light. if you're shooting at 400, there is virtually no noise at all on the D3/700, 1600 is where it starts looking crispy.



These are all valid questions jerry, and I understand where you're coming from with them, but for my purposes, the 50mm and SB-600 would make more sense with limited funds and I would get more use out of them.

 

[bdavison]

Would have started with Nikon instead of Fuji