D60 to a D700

[Stirlingdesigns]

Just 2 questions:

Will my lenses from my D60 fit the D700 camera?

Is the 85mm 1.4 AF-D lens worth the extra money compared to the 1.8 AF-D lens?

TIA!

[tamcry]

I will watch this one. I am looking at going from my D90 to D700 and have the same questions. I know that the D700 is FX format so I know that I will not get the same out of my DX lenses. I do have several types and a few prime lenses so as I said I will watch this post.
From what I have seen and read the D700 is a beauty.

[kirbinster]

All your lenses will physically fit, but DX lens will force the camera to drop back to something like 6 megapix and only give you a partial frame. As for the lens I think you are asking is the f/1.4 worth the money over the f/1.8 and have a typo I assume. That is a call you have to make based on the way you shoot. To me its not, but to others it is.

[jdepould]

The 70-300 will work fine, but the 18-55 is a crop lens. Either 85 works fine.

[coombzy]

Originally Posted by Stirlingdesigns

Is the 85mm 1.4 AF-D lens worth the extra money compared to the 1.8 AF-D lens?

I recently purchased the 85mm 1.8 AF-D. When testing it out in the store the employee helping me out said the move from 1.8 to 1.4 was absolutely not worth the money, in his humble opinion. I guess it depends on how much you want that f/1.4.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by coombzy

I recently purchased the 85mm 1.8 AF-D. When testing it out in the store the employee helping me out said the move from 1.8 to 1.4 was absolutely not worth the money, in his humble opinion. I guess it depends on how much you want that f/1.4.

It's not just the extra 2/3 of a stop of aperture: the 1.4 gets sharper faster and has significantly nicer bokeh.

[coombzy]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

It's not just the extra 2/3 of a stop of aperture: the 1.4 gets sharper faster and has significantly nicer bokeh.

Oh I'm confident it's a superior lens in more ways than one, but his point was for the extra $600+ the differences don't tend to justify the cost for the standard photographer.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by coombzy

Oh I'm confident it's a superior lens in more ways than one, but his point was for the extra $600+ the differences don't tend to justify the cost for the standard photographer.

I've been tempted, and frankly if I do get one, it'll be the 1.4. And I consider myself a "standard" photographer.

The ability to get SHARP images at f/2-2.8 is important: the f/1.8 version cant do this nearly as well as the f/1.4

[coombzy]

Do keep in mind I was making a sweeping generalization - if I had the money I'd have made the same choice you plan to and have agreed that the f/1.4 is superior. Kirbinster pointed out it comes down to how you shoot, but how much one can afford and how critical these features are for the buyer are pretty key too when we're talking a difference of $600. If one makes a living off photography then it sure would be worth holding out for the better piece of glass (and yes I'm sure it could be argued that one should hold out for the better piece of glass even if it weren't the main source of income). Without knowing Diane's situation I think it's difficult to advise.

[Stirlingdesigns]

I just thought I would update you all and let you know I did get the 85mm 1.4 lens - as this was a group gift from my family they didn't mind spending the extra! I just gotta love family!

My plans for this are to do portraits - I am in the process of creating a studio in my house and learning the aspects of lighting.

Thanks for your help and info on the lens - this is a great place to hang out!