I had put the new 85mm 1.4G lens on my shopping list to go with my D700 & D3s bodies, but just thought would it be a better idea to spend the same money (less actually) on a good DX body and use my 50mm 1.4G for portraits? There are obviously pro's and cons to both options, the biggest pro would seem to be the flexibility of a third body, but I have no 'pure' DX glass at the moment, and picture quality is more important to me in the long run. If you could only afford 1, would you spend your money on, and have the increased flexibility of a third body, or the possible outright quality of a FX body with 85mm lens?
D300s/7000 or new 85mm AFS 1.4G
(23 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I would personally go for the 85 depending on What lens setup you currently have. Though a third Camera would be nice, you already have the D700 and D3s and they are wonderful cameras. You might gain better portraits or images from the 85 1.4 over the 50. The question is if you would really need a D7000 over your D700 and D3s and if you would use a third body to use the crop sensor and video function vs a additional portraiture lens? What would you end up using more at the end of the day.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks smaterchild, I saw from another post that you have similar equipment to me and are also planning on buying the 85mm. My other lenses are the 14-24/24-70/70-200/105 micro 2.8s. The only other lens on top of the 50 that would realy be suitable for DX is a 70-300 VR that I bought to tide me over before I earnt enough money for the 70-200 VR2, (I love that lens!!). I suppose I could use the 105micro for portraits, but the idea of a 1.4 is inspiring me!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd do what you two are discussing—the new lens over the DX body.
Posted 2 years ago # -
To quote the infamous KR, glass is a better investment than digital bodies that will be worthless in a few years time.
Though your equipment is way above my level I have seen some awesome portraits taken with the old 85 1.4 on a D3.Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi SkintBrit
Here's another option: Instead of the AF-S 85mm f/1.4G which is £1500, get the 85mm f1.4 D AF which is £850 and spend the saved £650 on some other equipment?
Check camerapricebuster for the best UK prices you can get some real bargains.Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks Peeps, D300D70s, yes of course you're right, and except for the crop advantage of a DX body, I love FX and wouldn't realy use it day to day. Broxibear, good suggestion, but in the back of my mind if I went that route, I think I'd always be feeling "what if". Funny this question came up, because my mantra is normaly to buy the best I can afford. It just seems wrong that a 50 1.4 can be so fantastically cheaper than the 85? I suppose a large part of that is down to economies of scale, they must sell loads more 50s than 85s? Thanks for the tip regarding camerapricebuster, it's a good place to start, but I have actually found it for £1280 online at the moment, no one else is anywhere near (in the U.K.)!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi SkintBrit, It really depends on what your main interest are. From your list of current gear you sound like a portrait / wedding photog. in which case the 85 is the way to go.
However if you are interested in expanding your interest then a DX body has some advantages. Basically all your lenses will seem different ! It will seem like you will have a whole new set of lenses! The micro 105 will definitely benefit from the increased DOF and more magnification. The 24-70 will become a great portrait lens. the extra reach you get from the 70-200 is nothing to sneeze at. It will become a greater sports lens than it already is. The only lens that maybe will not benefit from DX is probably the 14-24. and of course you know what it will do to your 50G.
The D7000 is also smaller and if you get it with the kit 18-105 you may carry it around more than you would otherwise.
Posted 2 years ago # -
don't buy the d7000 or d300, you be disappointed in the results you get.
if you really want a DX wait for the new pro model. I am hoping for a d3s style dx.
having just bought a d300s as backup for my d700 i can tell you that it doesn't compare. I really cant think of a reason to buy a current dx given what you have.
can't say whether you need the 85 or not, though i do notice a lack of a super tele.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks for the suggestions hearty & Gareth, yes you are right they are my 2 main fields, but I have also recently been commissioned to shoot some theatrical productions. The only place I can shoot from in the theatre concerned is from the back of the auditorioum. I used the 70-300 for reach, but it was realy way to slow in that light. I was thinking about buying a TC2 to go with the 70-200, but that would make it just as slow as the 70-300, so the other option was to select the DX crop electronically in camera. I've been using this for reach for a while (until Santa brings me the 400 2.8 I've asked him for :-), but having the reach and megapixals of a DX body would have it's advantages. I think that as I am unsure how often I'll be getting the theatre jobs, it is probably best for me to get the lens that I know I'll use, and muddle through with the DX cropping till I know if that work is going to be regular. Then I'll have to buy a DX Body Aaaaarrrrrrrhhhhh!
Posted 2 years ago # -
If its theatre you are wanting to shoot then DX is NOT the way to go. Maybe try the TC1.4 with the 70-200 if you need more reach. Why from the back of the auditorium? Why ask you to shoot and restrict you to that? Anyway it would be way better shooting the D3S in crop mode and up scaling if you need to print bigger than going with DX.
LOL! 400VR F2.8 is nice :-) be nice to Santa!
The problem with the D400(DX D300s replacement) is that it does not exist and may never exist!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I can tell you that the tc-20eiii on the 70-200 vrII is not pro quality even on fx at f8.
the 300 2.8 on the other hand is very useful on my d700 and d300s.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi Gareth, I thought the new TC20 was meant to be quite a piece of kit, have you used it? Sounds like you have some reservations. I would expect the 300 2.8 to trounce it, but that's a dear piece of glass! Makes my 85mm purchase seem like an impulse buy :-)
heartyfisher said:
The problem with the D400(DX D300s replacement) is that it does not exist and may never exist!
Never say never heartyfisher, rumor has it!!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
LOL ! I will be more than happy if it turns up sometime in February! I have saved up for it since last year !!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
the way i rate whether my photos are sharp or not is by how many eyebrow hairs I can count. lol.
the tc20eiii is very good, and can be useful, but even my wife had to (very grudgingly)admit that the 300 2.8 makes me look like a pro, where the 70-200 with tc looked like i was just trying.
the 70-200 with tc-20eiii is good enough. but not to charge for imo. and i assume you are charging.
if you want i'll do a comparison of the 70-200 with tele on d300s and d700 vs without tele, and with 300 2.8.
say
70-200 vrII on d300s(100mm) vs d700(150mm) at f2.8
with tc20eiii (would be double focal length with tc)
70-200 vrII on d300s(100mm) vs d700(150mm) at f5.6
and
70-200 vrII on d300s(100mm) vs d700(150mm) at f8and the 300 2.8 wide on both bodies.
or whatever interests you.
that 85 1.4 looks like a hell of a lens. i am currently saving for the 35 1.4
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks very much for the very kind offer Gareth. I couldn't ask you to go to that trouble, and it probably isn't related to my original question, but you're right, an identical picture shot with your 300 2.8 at 5.6, and one shot with a 70-200 at 150 with the TC20E3 would be interesting to compare.
Thank you to everyone who has offered me advice, I think the unanimous opinion of everyone is to go for the lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No offense, but with a D700 and a D3S, I could not believe you even had to ask about getting a DX . . . shame on you for even considering that ;)
+1 for the lens, it is a beauty.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hey, don't dismiss DX as the poor cousin, you only have to look at some of the excellent shots taken on DX cameras in the "photo a day" thread, to see that it is anything but. Yes, some people would love FX, but there are many who could make the change if they wanted to, but are very happy with what they have. The only reason I went FX, is I started with no equipment what so ever after many years of absence from photography, (I looked at Canon, and thought their ergonomics were screwed up), and read so many people saying "invest in lenses, not cameras", that as the lenses I realy though were most in tune with the type of photography I do, it seemed like the way to go. Other than the lens what does a D700 realy do of great everyday consequence, that a D300s doesn't?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Not much ..( Unless you are into theatrical photography ;-) )
seriously though the D7000 sure is catching up on the D700 in terms of high iso but for 90% of the shots they are just as good as each other. in maybe 4% Dx is better(macro) and 4% FX is better(highISO lower DOF) (2% D3S only). just depends which 4% you prefer. of course that D3S allows shots that no other camera in the world can do but most of us can live without that(We may be dieing for it though!)
Posted 2 years ago # -
SkintBrit said:
Other than the lens what does a D700 realy do of great everyday consequence, that a D300s doesn't?reduced depth of field my friend.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html
you wont get a pic like this on DX
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sweet bokeh!! .. what's the kit?
Posted 2 years ago # -
d700 and 300 2.8G wide open
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeh OK, I have to admit that's very nice......but apart from that! :-)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
