birdman said:
On a D700 you could get away with plenty of lens choices. Even my Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 matches up fairly well on that body.

I would get a WA, a decent telephoto zoom (70-300VR), and a few cheap primes. I have the 50/1.8AF-D and 85/1.8AF-D. both are excellent!

That is the one FX lens I do have right now, I'm taking the money from my previous body and what if any money I can get for my DX glass to put towards some more FX glass once I decide on something. More than likely I'll go rent a couple and just go shoot.

On a D700 you could get away with plenty of lens choices. Even my Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 matches up fairly well on that body.

I would get a WA, a decent telephoto zoom (70-300VR), and a few cheap primes. I have the 50/1.8AF-D and 85/1.8AF-D. both are excellent!

As a walkabout lens, is the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 a consideration?
For 1K it's kinda expensive, but I think it's the convenience factor.

For me at least, if it's a relaxing "make picture if possible" walk, lugging another lens and changing it is a chore - or I could go out with 2 cameras and people will stare at me.

PB PM said:
I like shooting with primes, but I find FX sensors to be dust magnets. If you end up needing several F1.4 primes for a given shoot the weight ends up being the same or more in your bag anyway. For example, the 24mm f1.4G, 50mm F1.4G the 85mm F1.4G in one bag is heavier than the 24-70mm F2.8. Thus I went with the 24-70mm F2.8G to keep lens changes and the total kit weight down.

Good point!

I like shooting with primes, but I find FX sensors to be dust magnets. If you end up needing several F1.4 primes for a given shoot the weight ends up being the same or more in your bag anyway. For example, the 24mm f1.4G, 50mm F1.4G the 85mm F1.4G in one bag is heavier than the 24-70mm F2.8. Thus I went with the 24-70mm F2.8G to keep lens changes and the total kit weight down.

The 50mm 1.8g is better than 1.4g in every way except the 1.4. I think it's cheap enough that it wouldn't influence your budget much.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

It really depends upon what kind of shooting you do.

If you look over your electronic albums and see what photos you like taking and want to keep taking, check the EXIF data and what the lens ranges are. You can, with some of the software, check the data base to see where the lens ranges are.

That should help you decide where you should spend the most of your money.

Unless you expect to deposit money into a fat account, I'd recommend caution on expensive fast lenses in the f1.4 and faster lenses. The cost goes up pretty dramatically, and the bokeh is nice, but I'd argue that it isn't twice as nice at twice the price (unless someone else is paying for it - such as an employer or your ongoing and steady customers). The f-stop difference between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't significant, IMHO, to warrant the cost.

On sharpness, I'm not sure that there's a great deal to be gained with a prime over a zoom either - although I favor prime lenses, I'm likely a creature of habit, even though I embraced digital technology early on, I still use lenses from that pre-date sensor technology.

Zooms are handy for composition, and the sharpness difference between a modern zoom and an average prime is likely trivial. What should drive the train is this: it would probably be better to pick something that suits you than worry about sharpness.

Finally, I would suggest that you try to stay in a 'fast-ish' range, and consistent aperture, if your pocketbook allows it. F2.8 is great, but dear, and for me, a heavy SOB, probably the key reason for my affair with primes, they are lighter and faster.

You'll also find that faster lenses will be easier to focus (both manually and automatically).

Good luck on which ever choice you make and as always, my best,

Mike

+1 on all - especially the weight and why I end up using primes the most.

You can rent one for a few days or a week for not much ($100ish) and that may help answer your questions. Personally I like the 24-120 more for the added range. Add a couple of 1.8s (50/85) and for the same price you have both worlds.

Ok, so I picked up a new D700 today with the price drops and all I can say is the 24-70 is awesome on it. I also have the 50 1.4G and that is also very awesome on it. You couldn't go wrong with on of those two lenses.

I do not have the 24-70 2.8 but its sister the 70-200 2.8. They are both pro zooms. They will deliver very sharp pictures all day long. Shooting at 1.4 or 1.8 on a FF camera is 99,9% of the time the wrong way to get more light. Even at 2.8 the DOF on full frame is very narrow.

You have a D700. Bump the ISO to 1600. If you can't take a picture at 2.8 at ISO 1600 - light one more candle :-)

Go buy that 24-70. Use it a lot - take pictures. Don't worry. If you don't like it sell it. You will loose very little - even if you buy a new one.

May be that I'm biased as I am saving my pennies for a 24-70 - I will never buy another consumer zoom. I have seen what the pro zooms can do.

Best of luck

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

It really depends upon what kind of shooting you do.

If you look over your electronic albums and see what photos you like taking and want to keep taking, check the EXIF data and what the lens ranges are. You can, with some of the software, check the data base to see where the lens ranges are.

That should help you decide where you should spend the most of your money.

Unless you expect to deposit money into a fat account, I'd recommend caution on expensive fast lenses in the f1.4 and faster lenses. The cost goes up pretty dramatically, and the bokeh is nice, but I'd argue that it isn't twice as nice at twice the price (unless someone else is paying for it - such as an employer or your ongoing and steady customers). The f-stop difference between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't significant, IMHO, to warrant the cost.

On sharpness, I'm not sure that there's a great deal to be gained with a prime over a zoom either - although I favor prime lenses, I'm likely a creature of habit, even though I embraced digital technology early on, I still use lenses from that pre-date sensor technology.

Zooms are handy for composition, and the sharpness difference between a modern zoom and an average prime is likely trivial. What should drive the train is this: it would probably be better to pick something that suits you than worry about sharpness.

Finally, I would suggest that you try to stay in a 'fast-ish' range, and consistent aperture, if your pocketbook allows it. F2.8 is great, but dear, and for me, a heavy SOB, probably the key reason for my affair with primes, they are lighter and faster.

You'll also find that faster lenses will be easier to focus (both manually and automatically).

Good luck on which ever choice you make and as always, my best,

Mike

Great points. I love primes, I love the speed and the easy carrying nature. Though I really want to shoot lanscapes and city scapes, I've noticed primes can be limiting in this area unless I had a longer prime. Hints the interest in a midrange zoom, and the ability to shoot semi wide.

Hi,

It really depends upon what kind of shooting you do.

If you look over your electronic albums and see what photos you like taking and want to keep taking, check the EXIF data and what the lens ranges are. You can, with some of the software, check the data base to see where the lens ranges are.

That should help you decide where you should spend the most of your money.

Unless you expect to deposit money into a fat account, I'd recommend caution on expensive fast lenses in the f1.4 and faster lenses. The cost goes up pretty dramatically, and the bokeh is nice, but I'd argue that it isn't twice as nice at twice the price (unless someone else is paying for it - such as an employer or your ongoing and steady customers). The f-stop difference between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't significant, IMHO, to warrant the cost.

On sharpness, I'm not sure that there's a great deal to be gained with a prime over a zoom either - although I favor prime lenses, I'm likely a creature of habit, even though I embraced digital technology early on, I still use lenses from that pre-date sensor technology.

Zooms are handy for composition, and the sharpness difference between a modern zoom and an average prime is likely trivial. What should drive the train is this: it would probably be better to pick something that suits you than worry about sharpness.

Finally, I would suggest that you try to stay in a 'fast-ish' range, and consistent aperture, if your pocketbook allows it. F2.8 is great, but dear, and for me, a heavy SOB, probably the key reason for my affair with primes, they are lighter and faster.

You'll also find that faster lenses will be easier to focus (both manually and automatically).

Good luck on which ever choice you make and as always, my best,

Mike

If money is tight and you are looking for a good walk around lens you could also go with the 24-120 F4 VR lens that is out. It is pretty good and gives you a little extra reach and is also about $500 less then the 24-70. That being said, I have the 24-70 and I love it.

28fiend said:
Very true, as much I like the small packages primes have, it certainly would allow me some more room with a zoom. I was trying to see where I should best spend the coin, for one good lens or a couple. Thanks for the opinions, I'll just need to do some shopping.

I don't think you can go wrong with any lens or combination of lenses of the ones you listed. They are all great lenses. If you have a chance to try them it might help. Also do you even care for primes? Some people hate switching lenses.

tcole1983 said:
I don't think I agree with this comment. Primes are sharper than zooms. I don't think there is any question about that from anyone. I think the question isn't are they sharper, but is the sharpness gain worth the loss of versatility? I want to say most people prefer zooms (unless you were a diehard 35 mm person that refuses to change). I think they have come a long way from zooms 20 years ago. The current pro zooms perform pretty well compared to older ones. That being said primes still have their place. There are no current Nikon zooms faster than F2.8...so if you want a more shallow DOF or low light performance primes are the way to go. You also gain some sharpness in most cases (not every prime is that much sharper than zooms in the same range).

Like I said though if you want a walk around lens then the 24-70 zoom is a better option than a single prime.

JY said:
This was exactly what I wanted to say, had to leave in the middle of posting. The extra sharpness on primes in my opinion is not worth the versatility of zooms (for me at least).

Thanks Tcole.

Very true, as much I like the small packages primes have, it certainly would allow me some more room with a zoom. I was trying to see where I should best spend the coin, for one good lens or a couple. Thanks for the opinions, I'll just need to do some shopping.

tcole1983 said:
I don't think I agree with this comment. Primes are sharper than zooms. I don't think there is any question about that from anyone. I think the question isn't are they sharper, but is the sharpness gain worth the loss of versatility? I want to say most people prefer zooms (unless you were a diehard 35 mm person that refuses to change). I think they have come a long way from zooms 20 years ago. The current pro zooms perform pretty well compared to older ones. That being said primes still have their place. There are no current Nikon zooms faster than F2.8...so if you want a more shallow DOF or low light performance primes are the way to go. You also gain some sharpness in most cases (not every prime is that much sharper than zooms in the same range).

Like I said though if you want a walk around lens then the 24-70 zoom is a better option than a single prime.

This was exactly what I wanted to say, had to leave in the middle of posting. The extra sharpness on primes in my opinion is not worth the versatility of zooms (for me at least).

Thanks Tcole.

JY said:
The most useable focal length are probably the 24-70, it is very sharp, AF very fast and looks so pro with the hood on :)
My only wish is better looking bokeh. I may have been spoilt with the look of the 70-200 though. I know many (mostly C users) says primes are way sharper than zoom, however, from my experience of using nikon 35, 50, 85 and the 105 primes I don't see the value of those primes compare to nikon pro zooms unless if I needed the f 1.4 or the extra think of DoF.

I don't think I agree with this comment. Primes are sharper than zooms. I don't think there is any question about that from anyone. I think the question isn't are they sharper, but is the sharpness gain worth the loss of versatility? I want to say most people prefer zooms (unless you were a diehard 35 mm person that refuses to change). I think they have come a long way from zooms 20 years ago. The current pro zooms perform pretty well compared to older ones. That being said primes still have their place. There are no current Nikon zooms faster than F2.8...so if you want a more shallow DOF or low light performance primes are the way to go. You also gain some sharpness in most cases (not every prime is that much sharper than zooms in the same range).

Like I said though if you want a walk around lens then the 24-70 zoom is a better option than a single prime.

JY said:
The most useable focal length are probably the 24-70, it is very sharp, AF very fast and looks so pro with the hood on :)
My only wish is better looking bokeh. I may have been spoilt with the look of the 70-200 though. I know many (mostly C users) says primes are way sharper than zoom, however, from my experience of using nikon 35, 50, 85 and the 105 primes I don't see the value of those primes compare to nikon pro zooms unless if I needed the f 1.4 or the extra think of DoF.

You've answered my next question. I guess I need to track one down now for better than retail. THanks for the thoughts.

The most useable focal length are probably the 24-70, it is very sharp, AF very fast and looks so pro with the hood on :)
My only wish is better looking bokeh. I may have been spoilt with the look of the 70-200 though. I know many (mostly C users) says primes are way sharper than zoom, however, from my experience of using nikon 35, 50, 85 and the 105 primes I don't see the value of those primes compare to nikon pro zooms unless if I needed the f 1.4 or the extra think of DoF.

28fiend said:
Very true, I'm just trying to figure the most versatile set up, I like to keep my lens selections down. Mostly walk around with one lens.

You just answered your own question then didn't you ;)

Out of the ones you listed the only real walk around lens is the 24-70. Of course one could walk around with a prime on and just shoot that, but I find highly impractical as at least a zoom gives you some flexibility to create another perspective. That being said it is always nice to at least have one fast mid range prime I think...they can do stuff a F2.8 zoom can't.

elvishefer said:
All the lenses in that list are spectacular; as with all gear choices in photography, it depends on what and how you shoot.

Very true, I'm just trying to figure the most versatile set up, I like to keep my lens selections down. Mostly walk around with one lens.

All the lenses in that list are spectacular; as with all gear choices in photography, it depends on what and how you shoot.

Depends of what you gonna shoot. a 50mm f1.4 is nice to start. also go check on this website: *LINK REMOVED*
It tells you what people use on flickr plus some direct example.

I am kind of on the same boat. I am just waiting for the d800 :-) I am gona go with a 14-24 and a 50mm :-)
50mm as standard and 14-24 for wide angle :-) You can always crop pictures plus if it's FX it's even better :-)

I'm basically new to the FX world, picked up a D700 with about 800 actuations. Looking to put together a descent gear bag, though I only have enough money left over for one or two lenses depending on the lens. Trying to decide between:

24-70mm
24mm (maybe)
50mm
85mm

I've been reading quite a bit and there are quite a few people that see the 24-70 as good as any prime. Just trying to weigh whether two or three primes would be considered equal with the 24-70? Obviously the 24-70 would be more versatile. Any thoughts, advice, or ideas are greatly appriciated.