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!
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.
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."
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.
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.......