HI
I am very close to pulling the trigger on a D700.

If you check my profile -- you can see which lens I currently have and that I shoot with the D90 now.

I am thinking about buying another lens when I buy the D700 -- and would like to know which one you all think would be a good fit.

I like to shoot low light, classic cars, people, candids, family (first grandchild coming REAL soon, Macro -- very little action or birds, etc

Would be very interested in what you would suggest

To make things easier -- I will go ahead and list the lens that I have now:
Nikon: 18-55 VR, 18-200 VR, 24-70 f2.8, 70-300 VR, 50 f1.4, 105 f2.8 Marco
Sigma: 30mm f1.4, 10-20 UWA

Thanks in advance

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

Use the 24-70 that you already own. Your DX lenses will work in crop mode. What were you thinking of purchasing?

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was thinking about maybe the 85mm f1.4 "cream machine" --

How would that fit into my line up ?

Since I already have the 70-300 VR -- would it really do me that much good to get the 70-200 VR 2.8 ? (I know it is faster, better, etc)

Also -- how would the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Sigma 10-20 work on the D700

Would I get severe vignetting when used on the FX ?

Thanks

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

hi Art,

The Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D IF works very well on both the D3 and D700 as does the 70-200mm.
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the 10-20mm are both DC lenses which is the same as a Nikkor DX lens. Built to cover a DX sensor. You can use them on a D700 in Crop mode, but why? The 35mm f/2 would be a better choice.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

My Nikonians Gallery

One piece of advice - get the 700 as you will never regret it. And then acquire FX lenses as you go along. What I did was trade in or sell on Ebay my DX lenses and bought new and used lenses (FX) on Ebay. I have the Nikkor 18-35 3.5- 4.5 / Nikkor 70-300 4.5 -5.6 VR / Nikkor 28-200 3.5 -5.6 / Nikkor 50 1.8
I was doing a real estate job and was pretty unhappy with the DX crop when I used my DX lenses. I had a D80 which I kept, as bodies seem to lose much more than glass in value. I saved one lens - the 18-200VR and sold all the rest so it was not all that expensive to get FX lenses.
Now getting back to your needs. The D700 is ideal for shooting low light so don't spend the extra bucks on a 1.8 vs. a 3.5 since you can crank your ISO up when needed. Basically you want a long lens for portraits (grand children) and wide for landscape. I would suggest out of my lenses if I could only use one it would be 28-200.
Good luck

I bought my D700 last September. I've been using a Tamron 17-35mm since then to shoot mostly interior "environment" shots. Love the lens. A friend of mine let me borrow his Nikon 17-35mm lens.... whoa! There is definitely a difference in top end glass. I decided to buy one, but was alarmed when I saw the price tag. I did an inventory of my photo equipment and realized I had thousands of dollars of equipment sitting around that I wasn't using.... I sold every piece of equipment I haven't used in the past year and bought the following;

Nikon 17-35mm
Nikon 24-70mm
Already had the Nikon 70-200VR

I kept my Nikon 35mm f/2 because it's small, light, and versatile. It's the lens I use most for family shots - especially crawling on the ground with my grandson.

I hope that helps you a bit. You really don't have to have a lot of glass... just the right glass.

Don Menges
Menges Technology Integration

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I sold every piece of equipment I haven't used in the past
>year and bought the following: Nikon 17-35mm Nikon 24-70mm

I am very curious. Wny did you buy a 17-35 AND a 24-70? Do you actually find yourself using both? If so, which one is the least used?

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS 24L & BH-55
Nikkors: *14-24 *24-70 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300 & Tamron 90mm Macro

I would like to understand that a little better too.

Currently I am torn (assuming that I go FX and given my current lens line up) between the 14-24 and the 17-35

Is one of these two lens more "useable" than the other ?

Just trying to understand
Thanks in advance

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

For all the real estate shots I do I use my 18-35. In DX format this would be equivalent to the 12-24 which is a very popular lens with DX shooters. Personally I would go with the 17-35.






My Nikonians Gallery

gcarr
Thanks for your reply -- I am leaning towards the 17-35 myself -- seems like it would be more of an "all around" lens for me

Thanks again

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"

Art... I just read some interesting stuff about those 2 lenses on Ken Rockwell's page. I know a lot of people pan Rockwell... but I find his info interesting and informative at least. Basically he said the 14-24 is for folks who are a little "out there" like he is. (his words, not mine). He loves his 14-24, but admits that the 17-35 is probably the more versatile and therefore will be used more often by most people.

Quote.....
"I'm an ultrawide junkie so I love this thing. I'll probably never shoot it at longer than 18mm. For sane people, the 17-35mm AFS is a far more practical lens, because it covers a more practical zoom range and can use front protective and creative filters."

Full Review.....
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

Don Menges
Menges Technology Integration

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ken's article was also a factor for me when i bought my 17-35 last year, but I already owned a 35-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 fit right in so I cover 17-200 with the 17-35, 35-70, and 70-200 VR all 2.8 glass. I say with a D700 buy the fastest glass you can afford, because even though you can really crank up the ISO, a slow lens will not let you put the background out of focus as readily and that extra stop can also be the difference between a good image and no image at all.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

My Nikonians Gallery

Hi Rob- your comment-," a slow lens will not let you put the background out of focus as readily and that extra stop can also be the difference between a good image and no image at all."
All I can say is I have been shooting landscapes and portraits for years and a 2.8 or a 3.5 has never been a factor. The focal length say a 200mm will have far more effect on knocking out the background as oppose to a 50 mm. The f stop will enhance the softening but not to the point of missing the shot. Years ago when I shot film it was easy to determine the f stop you wanted to shorten the depth of field. Say 2.8 vs. 22 would soften it the most. Today in digital
f14 could be the ideal focal length for a sharper depth of field and then it softens at both other ends. I still stand by my comment that the greatest benefit of a 2.8 vs. a 4.5 is when you're shooting under low light conditions.
Cheers, Gary

Hey GB... I shoot mostly interior "scenes" and some exterior ones as well. The combination of these three lenses gives me 17-200 range. I'm usually in very tight spaces and how much room I want to leave in the front usually determines the focal length I need. The 2 lenses are not in my possession yet... the 17-35 comes tomorrow.... the 24-70 is on back order. I've been using the Tamron 17-35 and Tamron 28-70 for the past year or so and based on my experience with those lenses, I'll use the 17-35 much more than the 24-70..... but there are those times.......

http://www.mengesphotos.com

Don Menges
Menges Technology Integration

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Don
Thanks so much for the information
I have gone ahead and ordered the D700 as well as the 17-35 -- can't wait to get them and start playing

Thanks again

Art
"Feels so good feeling good again"