Lens help for my new D700 please?

[kimmeraz]

So, my awesome Grandpa is buying me a Nikon D700, which is a full frame camera.
I've opted to not get the kit, due to the fact that the lens that comes in said kit has been rated by some as one of Nikon's worst lenses ever made, so why waste the money right?
I currently own only ONE lens that will work on this new full frame camera, and it's Nikon's 28-200 3.5 that was discontinued back in 06'. (The rest of my lenses are DX, which really won't do the trick with the new FX camera.)
But since I'm not getting the kit lens, I do have the option of adding on something similar in price which would be the Tamron 28-75 2.8.
Now my question is this: Would it be beneficial to have this lens since the one I already own covers the same focal range? Yes, the Tamron is faster, but is that really the only benefit? I'm really struggling with this decision, so any input is appreciated!
Oh, and if you have any other lens suggestions, please list them! Thanks!!!

[OsmosisStudios]

I realize this isnt what you were asking, but is there any reason you're getting the D700 over a DX camera? If you're dead-set on FX, then you can always sell the DX lenses to fund it.

Replicating the 28-200 range is a good idea, as you can use the 28-200 for vacation or snapshot use and then use shorter-range lenses for image quality issues.

Lens suggestions also vary depending on what you plan on shooting. An ultra-wide lens is useless if youre shooting birds, but a super-telephoto isn't much good if backing up means falling off a cliff.

[Ray Dockrey]

I agree with the above. Unless you are planning on shooting in really low light I would opt for the D300s. You could get the 18-200 VR lens which would give you a nice walk around lens and you could still use the DX lenses you have. Plus that combo would be slightly cheaper then the D700 by itself.

[kimmeraz]

Well, the reason I'm leaning towards the D700 is because of the full frame and the capability to shoot in really low light. I'm going to be starting an apprenticeship with a wedding photographer, and was told that full frame and high ISO options were very important. I want a camera that I'm not going to be growing out of any time soon, because I don't foresee being able to afford anything on my own in the near future. Since this is a gift, I wanted to make the most of the purchase. And because this is a gift, I can't just go adding on Nikon's top lenses at my leisure.
While I'm beyond excited to have a new camera (I've been shooting with a D50 for the last 5 years, and I'm ready to take it to another level), it's been quite the process deciding on the D700 vs. the D300. Crap, am I about to make a bad decision?

[OsmosisStudios]

If you're doing weddings, youre on the right track. The reason I ask is that a lot of people decide they need a D700 or better and really dont.

That being said, your choice of lens now is suspect. the 28-200 is fine for casual snapshots and travelling, but it's no wedding lens. Most people end up with a 24-70 and 70-200 (both f/2.8) pair.

Nikon is having a pretty awesome rebate right now for the D700 with both those lenses, and I'd really recommend them over third party offerings. While these can be good, they often suffer from quality control issues and are, as a rule, not as good as their Nikon counterparts.

You'll most likely end up using the 70-200 more often, just because of the focal length range. For weddings you end up with fairly long lenses with fast apertures (like the f/2.8 of this case).

I'd take a look at selling the DX lenses and seeing what your local retailer/Adorama/B&H are asking for for the D700+70-200 f/2.8 VR2 pair. From there you can always add a 50mm f/1.8 if you need something wider.

[kimmeraz]

I completely understand why you would be questioning my lens of choice. See, I wouldn't really call it my "lens of choice", it just happens to be all I have to work with at the moment, and therein lies the problem. While the gift of an expensive camera is absolutely wonderful, I have a hard time saying, "Thank you for the camera, but it's not enough...
I need lenses too!" LOL
I will see if I can swing a new Nikon lens, but I'm almost leaning towards the 24-70 first, as I will have some other assignments before the wedding stuff begins. I'm going to be shooting my 20th high school reunion...talk about pressure!! Do you think this type of setting would call for the wider lens or the longer focal range? BTW, thanks so much for your input and taking the time to help me. It is beyond appreciated... :-)

[Almond.Butterscotch]

The 24-70 (imo) should serve you well for the time being, but as said, you're probably going to want something wider come wedding time.

But just for good measure (if you need something faster than the 2.8), why not just throw in the 50mm for an extra $80?

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

The 24-70 (imo) should serve you well for the time being, but as said, you're probably going to want something wider come wedding time.

But just for good measure (if you need something faster than the 2.8), why not just throw in the 50mm for an extra $80?

I agree. The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is an awesome lens--for the price. Although not sure where you'd find it for $80. You can find them for about $100 (refurbed by Nikon). I had bought one at Adorama not long ago.

[kimmeraz]

I'm happy to report that I'm getting the 24-70 to go with my d700. Then my mom says, "You have a birthday coming up if there is another lens you want...."

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

I agree. The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is an awesome lens--for the price. Although not sure where you'd find it for $80. You can find them for about $100 (refurbed by Nikon). I had bought one at Adorama not long ago.

I got mine for $75 + free shipping off of eBay. I've seen them go as low as $70 on Craigslist, but anything cheaper usually seems to be the E series.