I am graduating from college in May and have decided to treat myself to some photo equipment as a graduation gift. I am a photography major but doubt I will be a full time professional photographer, more of a way to make money on the side. I have been going back and forth on whether to get a Nikon D3S with a sigma 24-70 f/2.8. The other lenses that I currently have that will work on the FX body are the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 Vr, Sigma 105mm macro and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Or to get the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 and Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. I know these lenses are better suited for FX format which someday I will eventually upgrade to (hopefully, money willing). At the moment I have a Nikon D300. Thoughts, ideas, other suggestions are all appreciated. Take care all and Thanks...
Better Investment: Lenses or Bodies
(60 posts) (33 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
lenses. if you're not shooting professionally, you don't need the D3s. You could compromise and get a D700 and one of the lenses if you really need to be FX, but seeing as you've already got a good DX camera, I would outfit it with lenses to make it do what I want for now. Get the 10-24 to go with it, and you basically have the 14-24 anyway, just in a less piggish package. Then when you update, sell the 10-24, get the 14-24, and be done with it, or keep the 10-24 and use it as a DX substitute on a 2nd body.
Unequivocally, lenses are the better investment though, I've bought two lenses to add to my already existing collection in the past 3 years pretty much, and only one of those was AF.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Why would you want a D3S if your not going to go full time photography? Get a D700 or D800/900 and some good glass! Or better yet keep the D300 spend the money on good FX Nikkors and later get the D800 or whatever.
I don't recommend Sigma but I'm sure everyone and their mother will here :^)
And I'll be even braver and say don't invest in DX glass.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What Niko said, don't get any off brand lenses. They're a money pit.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Tru Dat Chris!
Oh and welcome to the forum HFD Whalers
Posted 3 years ago # -
Monetarily lenses are always the best investment. Also, I'm guessing you will not be happy with the Sigma lens if you are used to using glass like the 70-200 nikkor.
That being said, if you can stand not having the latest and greatest body, the D3S should last you a long long time. Probably not as long as the pair of lenses would, though.
EDIT: Wow this forum is polarized when it comes to off-brand lenses. I wouldn't recommend them to people who can afford nikkors, but they aren't THAT bad... You just need to know what you are buying, and not have the wrong expectations.
Posted 3 years ago # -
D3S-latest and greatest- year and a half to two years tops.
Posted 3 years ago # -
WHY would you even consider a new body if you have a D300?
Really anyone with a Gen 2 body + software would have to be doing FULL time photography to truly justify it. . .
How many shots would you miss with your D300 (and noise ninja software) that the D3s would enable?
I realize there is nearly a 3-stop advantage and significant gains in DR, but. . .the glass is the "smarter" investment, as $5200 for a body vs. $3500 glass isn't apples to apples. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I second (third?, fourth?, etc?) the view of the others as to lense versus body. You've got a D300. Invest in lenses. A D3S isn't going to magically transform anyone's photography. Invest in FX lenses, and one day, when you want to add a body, you can get an FX (still don't need that D3S).
I also agree that it is better to have some glass, rather than none. There are a lot of people who make very good photographs with second tier glass. If you can afford Nikkors, get them. If not, get the best you can afford.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Go with Nikkor lenses. I own the 24-70 2.8,70-200 2.8 vr1, and 50mm 1.4G and i dont plan on replaceing any of them for another 7 years now. Maybe the 70-200, since i bought it about 2 months before the replacement was announced. I also have a D3 and d90 and i would say FX is worth it. Look for a nice d700 or used factory demo D3. I picked up my d3 as a factory demo for 3500 with 3 year mack warrenty and i swear i picked up a brand new camera.
Just think, bodies will be replaced every 2-4 years. Lenses could last 10years+ if you buy nikon. Dont buy off brand junk, Not a good investment when you could pay 2x more or maybe 3x more and have the best lens out there that will last. Since you have a d300, i would suggest just hold onto that and buy some nice nikkor lenses. 24-70 is amazing. and then just wait till the new d4 comes out in the next few years or maybe a d800 or d900 FX
Posted 3 years ago # -
A high school student with a D3? Oh, dear. alphanikonrex is going to be jealous. Wait, I'm jealous!
I say lenses, too.Posted 3 years ago # -
lenses
Posted 3 years ago # -
lenses
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
A high school student with a D3? Oh, dear. alphanikonrex is going to be jealous. Wait, I'm jealous!
I say lenses, too.Hahah, i do understand that. Its quite odd. but im a senior and im planning on attending college for photography up at columbia photography school in chicago. I wanted a Full frame because im use to shooting on a full frame film cameras. (f3 and f5). I thought about the d700 with grip and that would be about the same price as a factory demo on ebay for a d3.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Unless you need the high ISO abilities of an FX body, stick with the D300 and get better lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lenses and a back-up body (if you change your mind and shoot for money).
Posted 3 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
WHY would you even consider a new body if you have a D300?Really anyone with a Gen 2 body + software would have to be doing FULL time photography to truly justify it. . .
How many shots would you miss with your D300 (and noise ninja software) that the D3s would enable?
I realize there is nearly a 3-stop advantage and significant gains in DR, but. . .the glass is the "smarter" investment, as $5200 for a body vs. $3500 glass isn't apples to apples. . .
Very well said and I agree with this. I always wanted the latest body but once I got my D300, I started looking more closely at lenses and over the last year, that's what I've been investing in. Spend money on good glass. Cameras like the D300 in particular really come alive and reach their full potential when a great lens is attached. This is true for almost all camera bodies but especially true for this class of camera. As far as noise goes, I know from personal experience that noise is less noticeable with the good glass. I don't know why this is. Perhaps because the image as a whole is better? I don't know.
Also, I am one who will try to discourage you from using third party...hell...let me be honest...Sigma. If you can afford Nikkors, get them. Only get something like Sigma is there is absolutely no other way to get a Nikkor. I've sacrificed a lot to get mine, things I probably shouldn't have but I don't regret it for one second.
Also for full frame, I'd get the D700 personally unless you need what amounts to night vision on the D3s. The D700 is still great in low light.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Clearly lenses are the better investment... but that's a simplistic way of looking at it. An investment is something you buy & then sell (hopefully for a profit). I'd compare it to asking which is better investment, buying a car, or buying gas... except the analogy breaks down because Gas is actually the better investment even though its consumable.
The real question is which will help you make better pictures? Clearly, both are useless without the other. But expensive glass on a cheap camera will definitely get you better results than cheap glass on an expensive camera.
Here's the rub though. Once you have the glass you need, you don't really need to buy any more glass... possibly for another decade or so. You would get a much better improvement upgrading a D40 to a D700 than you would upgrading your 70-200 VRI to a 70-200 VRII.
That said, my advice to you would be as follows:
1. Decide what kind of photography you want to do.
2. Get really good at doing it. If you find yourself limited by your current glass than ask yourself what's holding you back. If its a focal length problem or if your glass is to slow, then you need to get some different lenses. If you are already shooting at the focal length you want and at a fast aperture, and still not getting the results you are after, than you might need a different camera body.
3. See your answer to number 2? It's wrong... the problem is your technique.
4. Technique isn't the problem? Ok go back to #2
5. Light - good lighting trumps good equipment any day.
6. If you are still confused, just buy all the glass you think you might need, then save up for the nicest body you care to afford. At that point you will still have great glass, and whatever the body of the moment is will be far better than what is available today.People are quick to state that Camera bodies are a bad investment, and they are. But unlike a lens, which will help you take better photos in a speciffic set of circumstances, a body will improve the performance of all of your lenses (or at least it can).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Well stated, Willis.
Posted 3 years ago # -
agreed^^^ although 2.8 beat any 3.5/5.6 variable out...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lenses it is. Thats the way I was leaning , but having a D3S sure would have been fun. I'll wait a month or two however to see what is going on with the D900 (or whatever # they go with) Thanks all.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You aren't done yet HFD... you still have to come back and tell us which one you decided to go for.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
If you go with a D3S but decide you don't like it I'm sure you'll find some "adopters" on the forum ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with Willis, particularly about good lights. Studio strobes have extremely long useful lives, as do the best tripods and heads. Stands, poles, clamps, reflectors and backdrops all last forever.
BTW don't knock 3.5-5.6, the 16-85 is one of my favorite lenses.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
