In the last 3 months I've been fortunate enough to get a D700. Most of my shots are done in low light - Church, gyms, inside the house, dusk & dawn, etc.
The f1.2 50m would seem to be a good next lense, but with the crispness that is produced by the 24-70 f2.8 at mid high ISO settings (1250-3000) I'm beginning to wonder. Is there a benefit, even a subtle increase in quality, to the 50m over the 24-70 when the noise is almost non-existant with the 2.8? Crispness is an issue because some of these shots will be enlarged to 24 X 30 or larger. Also, I do amost no PP on any shots, so as a rule the image captured is the image.
There are few similarities between the 24-70 f2.8 and Nikkor 50mm f1.2. Both are fine lenses. Even at 50mm the f1.2 is 2 1/2 stops faster and considerably lighter than the 24-70. In fact there are those shooters that prefer the 50mm f1.2 as a "walk around lense on the D700. I have both, the f1.2 from my F3HP days and the 24-70 supporting my present D700 days. Both have their unique advantages, so I have difficulty comparing these two lenses. However, given the choice of only one of these lenses, my choice would be the 24-70, without any hesitation. Wils
Both lenses are capable of producing very sharp images. The factor that you should keep in mind is when shooting the 50mm wide open at f/1.2 the DOF is very narrow. On top of that with the smaller viewfinder of the D700 nailing the focus when using the 50mm f/1.2 can be tough as well. I know my eyes are not as good as they once were but it may be a issue for you as well. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Thank you - It would seem that even with the poster sized enlargements the 50m f1.2 doesn't deliver a lot of advantage over the f2.8 with a higher ISO. In fact the f1.2 may take some additional skills and precisness to deliver a high quality image.
If there are other thoughts please feel free to lay them out. In the mean time thanks again!