Gonna get a D700, need to get some new lenses as well!

[thenebean9]

Hi everyone!

I'm gonna be making a purchase soon - a brand new Nikon D700! I've heard great things and I'm very excited to be getting one. Thing is, currently I own a D90, and apparently all the lenses I have (except for a Nikon 50mm f/1.4) are for DX sensors and the full frame. I would like to at least get one good all purpose lens to go with the D700 but I'm not sure what to get. I have a couple of Sigma lenses for the D90 now and I think they are pretty nice! It sure saves a few bucks over the Nikon equivalents, but I don't want to regret later saving a few bucks if the difference in quality is huge. I've read some reviews on a couple of websites, but I'm torn. Can anyone provide some real world experience on Nikon vs. Sigma lenses - especially the higher end faster ones? I am looking to get something like the 70-200mm f/2.8 or perhaps a 18-70mm f/2.8 as well...thoughts? I do portrait work, some weddings, and stuff like that.

Thanks

Athina

[OsmosisStudios]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is comparable, but the Nikon will still be considerably better.

You won't find an 18-70 (remember, 18 on FX is really quite wide), but the 24-70 range is a common one. Again, you'll find comparable results, but the Nikon will be better.

[thenebean9]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The 70-200 f/2.8 is comparable, but the Nikon will still be considerably better.

You won't find an 18-70 (remember, 18 on FX is really quite wide), but the 24-70 range is a common one. Again, you'll find comparable results, but the Nikon will be better.

thanks osmosis!

i guess deep down i know that the smartest and best decision is to buy the nikon, but is it really $600-$800 better than the sigma? i guess if it wasn't, everyone would be buying a sigma!

anyone have any side by side photo comparisons of what the nikon can do vs. the sigma? i guess that would really help, but i don't know if there's anything like that out there!

thanks

[kirbinster]

Go for the Nikon 24-70, it is an amazing lens. I had a Sigma before the Nikon, and there is no comparison, the Nikon is just soooo much better.

[jdgonzalez]

I don't have any other commentary other than I'm curious as to why you're moving the D700 v. D300s. I'm also a D90 user who is looking to upgrade.

Thanks

[thenebean9]

Originally Posted by jdgonzalez

I don't have any other commentary other than I'm curious as to why you're moving the D700 v. D300s. I'm also a D90 user who is looking to upgrade.

Thanks

the biggest reason is the full frame vs. the cropped frame of the D90. I have a photographer friend who bought the D700 just a month or two ago and raves about it - especially in low light - which would be helpful in churches, etc for weddings and such

I love my D90, but i need something a little more professional now

[inkista]

Before getting a new D700 for full price, I'd ask yourself one tiny question. After you've bought it and shot with it for six months, how are you going to feel when a D700 successor is released with way more Cool Stuff™ (read: HD Video and other goodies)? Are you going to wish you'd waited? Or are you still going to be incredibly happy with your toy? If you know it's the former, then maybe waiting and transitioning your glass first is a good idea. If you're positive it's the second, then joyous spending should follow. If you're not sure then maybe thinking a little longer on the question is worthwhile.

[thenebean9]

Originally Posted by inkista

Before getting a new D700 for full price, I'd ask yourself one tiny question. After you've bought it and shot with it for six months, how are you going to feel when a D700 successor is released with way more Cool Stuff™ (read: HD Video and other goodies)? Are you going to wish you'd waited? Or are you still going to be incredibly happy with your toy? If you know it's the former, then maybe waiting and transitioning your glass first is a good idea. If you're positive it's the second, then joyous spending should follow. If you're not sure then maybe thinking a little longer on the question is worthwhile.

inkista,

thanks for the reply - i toyed with this for a while, not because i'd want any of the HD goodies (i dont really record anything with the video capabilities on my D90 as is) but because the price might go down with the introduction of a NEW D700! I dont think i'll be wishing I waited for HD video - i might for a significant increase in MPs though! But even then, i think i'd be happy with my purchase

[kuvahmagh]

Originally Posted by thenebean9

inkista,

thanks for the reply - i toyed with this for a while, not because i'd want any of the HD goodies (i dont really record anything with the video capabilities on my D90 as is) but because the price might go down with the introduction of a NEW D700! I dont think i'll be wishing I waited for HD video - i might for a significant increase in MPs though! But even then, i think i'd be happy with my purchase

I'm far from an expert on Nikon but from what I have seen they are less focused on the MP race than pretty much everyone else. Most major upgrades in the Prosumer/Pro area don't seem to follow the same major jumps of others such as Canon (D200: 10.2MP - D300: 12.3MP) vs the recent Canon's, the 'worst' of which is the jump from the 40d to the 50d, 10MP to 15MP, now 18 with the 7d. So while they will no doubt increase the MP, my uneducated guess would be to around 15MP but they will focus on other issues of Quality. After all I just did a 16x20 print from a 30D with an 8MP sensor that is more than a couple years dated by now that looks pretty much as good as same size shots from a 50D. By now technique, experience & exposure count for more than MP, especially with tools such as Photoshop and access to affordable, high quality printers such as those found online.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by thenebean9

... i think i'd be happy with my purchase

Joyous spending it is, then.

And I wouldn't worry too much about a price drop. The release of a new model doesn't usually mean prices suddenly drop off a cliff for the old one--the price decrease tends to be relatively steady over the long haul. You're already getting the D700 at a discount. When it debuted back in 2008, its initial MSRP body price was $3000. I only asked because people tend to forget that these things have a product lifespan or to consider the possibility of future models;and can be severely disappointed when their shiny new toy is suddenly superseded a short time later. I'm always posting a gazillion "new models due soon!" statements all over this board just before every PMA (March) and Photokina (September).

Originally Posted by kuvahmagh

I'm far from an expert on Nikon but from what I have seen they are less focused on the MP race than pretty much everyone else. Most major upgrades in the Prosumer/Pro area don't seem to follow the same major jumps of others such as Canon (D200: 10.2MP - D300: 12.3MP) vs the recent Canon's, the 'worst' of which is the jump from the 40d to the 50d, 10MP to 15MP, now 18 with the 7d. So while they will no doubt increase the MP, my uneducated guess would be to around 15MP but they will focus on other issues of Quality.

This is the one issue I seriously would not venture to guess about at all. But the fact that the 5DMkII is 21MP and Canon may up that with a MkIII could push Nikon to increase its resolution by more than you're guessing. Although, of course, the recent speculation that Sony may be getting out of full-frames (and possibly dSLRs) altogether, and Thom Hogan confirming that Nikon is now rolling their own sensors is also going to affect things.

To me the only shoo-in prediction on a D700 successor would be HD 1080p video at both 24 and 30 fps. The 5DMkII's insane growth of sales among professional film-makers is too pronounced to be ignored.