Oh, yeah, there was a question originally that started this topic. Go for the glass. I agree with SuperShooter.
D4 or 300mm f/2.8 VRII
(33 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Yes I'd say go for the glass because your camera now is one of the best on the market. If you had a D700 like me or were DX I might suggest you upgrade the body depending on your work demands. The D3s is a lot of camera and many people use it for sports and other gigs.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, until we know exactly what the D4 offers and exactly why it is supposed to be "revolutionary" in some respects we cannot really make a judgment between the camera body and the glass.
BUT some people have a digital investment rule of thumb which goes somewhat like "always pick the lens over the body" because a Nikon lens will be usable for many generations of bodies to come (the glass won't wear out or become obsolete and the DOF isolation of subject it offers won't change) while a body, no matter how good today, will be replaced with something better in 3 or 4 years. Using that rule of thumb, the best "investment" would be the lens because it will be usable and function just the same 10 or 20 years from now while the body will have been replaced with a few new generations of better and better digital imaging.
BUT ALSO, I suspect once you have the lens and then the D4 body comes out, you will find you really want the D4 body also due to some feature it offers which you lust for. Yet, since the lens will change less over a period of 10 or 20 years, it would be the better long term investment.
Posted 2 years ago # -
donaldejose said: But if the D4 does give us a cleaner higher ISO up two f stops from the D3s then we can set the ISO to 12,800 or higher (whatever still yields a clean image) and drop our f stop from 2.8 to 4 or 5.6 and still do what we had done with the f 2.8 lens. This can allow us to use "normal" lenses and not have to pay huge amounts for special 2.8 lens. I think that would be a great benefit for sports photographers and drastically reduce the cost necessary to freeze sports figures.
The NEED for the 2.8 could disappear for sports photographers. My point is that the need (as opposed to desire) for the "big" lens may no longer exist.
Personally I NEED a 400mm f1.4, so a 400/2.8 VR2 on a D4 would give me that. I NEED BOTH. As Nikodoby and others say, high ISO ability is great, but will never substitute fast glass.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I could be dead wrong, but in light of recent events, I don't think we'll be seeing a D4 until Q1 2012 at the earliest (but, now that I've just purchased a D3s, of course, it will be announced in only six months).
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460 said:
I could be dead wrong, but in light of recent events, I don't think we'll be seeing a D4 until Q1 2012 at the earliest (but, now that I've just purchased a D3s, of course, it will be announced in only six months).You could well be correct with regards to the D4 release timescale, but now that you've gone and got a 3s, I reacon a week! :@)
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460: for your sake I hope the new D turns out to be "no big deal" or long delayed so you don't regret your recent purchase of the D3s.
Posted 2 years ago # -
donaldejose said:
studio460: for your sake I hope the new D turns out to be "no big deal" or long delayed so you don't regret your recent purchase of the D3s.I don't think anyone really regrets the purchases...if he uses it and he obviously will before the D4 comes out then it is worth it in my opinion. For this thread I say get the lens. Especially since there really hasn't been much info on a release date for the D4...you could be waiting a lot longer then you think. While the whole time you could have been using your awesome lens...they work on any body ;)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
