If you had £3000 which body and lens would you buy?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

If you had £3000 which body and lens would you buy?

(23 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

crude

member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 10
offline

HIya guys, im looking to buy my first FX body and compatible lens, currently i have 35mm f1.8, 18-200 f3.5-5.6, sb700 and a d60 body, ive just got into photography for the past 2 years and been following a few pros round and learning the best i can with what i have now im looking to upgrade as i can feel the restrictions with the body especially in low light situations.
Most of the time i am shooting events from clubs, bars, weddings, corporate events but i would love to expand and try some portrait work as well at some point.
Should i go second hand or not??

Your advice will be greatly appreciated
thanks
Crude

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

A new D700 ( if you can find one) and a new 24 - 120 f4 vr*

*If you do not like, or often cannot use flash, consider the 24-85 f2.8

for those really wide shots at weddings, maybe a second hand 16 -35 f4 vr

If any thing is left over get the SB 910

job done

the above has served me well doing clubs, bars, weddings, corporate events and portrait work for the past 2 years

I also have the 70-200 f 2.8 a fab lens but not used that much

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

$4700 USD.... D800 plus 24-120mm f/4.0 VR Nikkor. This is to answer the initial question in the topic title. However, a used D3, possibly from a very wealthy hobbyist who has a new D4 and has treated the D3 with kid gloves, plus the 24-70mm f/2.8 would give a super low light combination. In used purchases, the condition of the equipment is critical. And, knowing the seller is, for me, very important.

Posted 10 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Hard choice I think. With no FX glass it doesn't give you anything to start with. The SB700 will be good still.

I think seven and msmoto kind of gave you the two scenarios.

With the budget you can go more like this with the D700.
D700
24-120 F4
85 F1.8G
28 F1.8G

or
D700
24-70 F2.8 (I think this is a better lens)
85 F1.8 or 105 F2.8 or any other prime that fits what you need

D800 scenario is about what msmoto said. You can get a D800 and one lens...whatever you think would fit best. 24-120 would be a good range, but not sure how great portraits would be with it. You could get a prime like the 85 also.

If you can find them for a decent amount less refurbished are great (sometimes they are only a small fraction off which probably isn't worth it). I am slightly wary of used bodies just because it all depends on the person and FX bodies have been usually used by pros and they put lots of shutter counts on them. I think lenses are a different story. If they are in good shape I would go for them.

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

msmoto said:
$4700 USD.... D800 plus 24-120mm f/4.0 VR Nikkor. .

I am assuming crude is not VAT registered so D800 plus 24-120mm = £3,428 including VAT

but crude, if you can afford the extra £428 get the D800

Posted 10 months ago #
Eric

senior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 363
offline

@crude - I ordered my D4 and then got an offer for my D3S that I could not pass up, so I sold it. I thought the D4 would arrive quickly and it didn't. The body I planned to use while waiting left me frustrated (I wanted higher frame rates) so I went looking for the best value FX body I could find. I ended up getting a almost new, used D3.

I'd consider the D3 and go with tcole1983's lens suggestion:
D3
24-120 F4
85 F1.8G
28 F1.8G

Although msmoto's idea of a D3 and 24-70 has merit as well... it all depends on your usage.

Disclosure: My D3 with under 10k clicks is up for sale. PM me if interested.

Posted 10 months ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

No one suggesting holding off for a while and seeing how the D600 pans out?

Posted 10 months ago #
mark_wilkins

member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 23
offline

I'd go for:

D3200 (£530)
14-24/2.8 (£1300)
24-70/2.8 (£1200)

(Pricing is from amazon.co.uk)

First rate lenses that will still be first rate in 10 years or when you get an FX body, and a basic camera that will do everything you need for almost anything a serious amateur would care to do (plus lots of nice features not even conceived of when your D60 came out.)

Edit: yes, I mean skip the FX for now. Better lenses will do a lot more for your photography, and the D3200 will be a big step up from the D60 in image quality. Note that you'll get very solid ISO 6400 performance from the D3200, which will address the low light issue nicely, your 35mm lens will still be an excellent fast normal lens, and the extra stop or so on the pro zooms will be a huge help for both AF performance in low light and pushing farther into darker environments. Finally for a LONG lens you can use your current zoom, though it's very rare I'd go past 70mm on DX for the photography you're doing, including portraiture. If you need a long lens, the 70-200/2.8 is an option later on.

Here are the reasons to go for a full-frame sensor:

Shallower depth of field effects (though this is very subtle coming from a DX sensor)
Access to very wide angle lenses (though current lenses are much wider than they were a few years ago due to DX popularity)
Better extreme low light performance (though going D60 -> D3200 and going for 2.8 zooms will get you most of this advantage too.)
Pro features like older lens compatibility. (which are mostly just nice to have and not going to be make or break for you.)

I personally went for a full-frame camera only after having pretty much all the lenses I wanted, and mainly because my lens choices were mostly made when I was shooting film. Plus, I love wide angle photography and my widest lens was a 17-35/2.8 zoom. I could have gone for the 14-24/2.8 to address that, but given the whole picture it made sense to go for a D800 instead, particularly since almost all my lenses were from before AF-S became common.

TL;DR version: FX sensors are great, but top end lenses and an inexpensive modern DX body will get you farther for less money.

Posted 10 months ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

IMHO you need TWO bodies with two different lenses if you are shooting moments as opposed to poses. With your budget perhaps buy used D5100's, 24-70 f2.8 and the 14-24 2.8 f2.8 and you are sorted. The bodies are DX but are cheap enough that if you decide you really need FX later it isn't the end of the world.

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

spraynpray said:
IMHO you need TWO bodies with two different lenses if you are shooting moments as opposed to poses.

Sorry to disagree Spray., On the rare occasions I use two cameras, that "Cartier-Bresson moment" always seems to occur when I am changing cameras

Posted 10 months ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

sevencrossing said:
Sorry to disagree Spray., On the rare occasions I use two cameras, that "Cartier-Bresson moment" always seems to occur when I am changing cameras

Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

Posted 10 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

spraynpray said:
Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

This...
I think I would be more comfortable with multiple bodies. Each with a different lens. If I were going to do it with what I have I would shoot my 17-55 F2.8 and my 105 F2.8 on separate bodies. I have even thought about this recently with the D5100 being very cheap.

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm, you must be a super-slick lens swapper if you can do it quicker than grabbing a second camera seven... :-)

Not at all :) For capturing "the decisive moment" one camera, one lens ( 24-120 f4)

Posted 10 months ago #
crude

member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 10
offline

How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

OK, D600 is £1150, but instead of the 24-70mm f/2.8, get the 24-120mm adds only £800, then an 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 adds another £300 or so, and for £2250 a great set of lenses and body....

Posted 10 months ago #
mark_wilkins

member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 23
offline

I don't know, I can't recommend that someone get a 24-120 in good conscience except for travel. Between vignetting, geometric aberrations that vary at different focal lengths, softness at the corners, and the other issues that go with such a wide zoom range, it's just trying to be too many things, plus since low light performance is the OP's concern, it's likely to be slower than he'll need.

Posted 10 months ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

That would be where my £3000 would go. We obviously don't know what the D600 is going to be like, but I'd definitely wait and find out if I was jumping in to the FF market for the first time with your budget. If you buy the 24-70 you'll never regret it IMO.

Posted 10 months ago #
Wataru

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 248
offline

D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G. Or d800 and 85 1.4G, and buy other lenses later. I've got a lot of lenses, but the 50 and the 85 get used most, more than the zooms. Since you already have a 35, which is wide on an FX body, you should take a close look at primes.

The 85 1.4 is amazing, but if you can't afford it now, look at the 105 2.8 micro VR.

Posted 10 months ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

Wataru said:
D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G. Or d800 and 85 1.4G.

Not for £3000 he can't!

Posted 10 months ago #
earthsea

senior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 69
offline

If you are going to shoot mostly clubs and bars I would suggest that you factor in a good flash unit as well.
What ever lens you get should have VR.

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

mark wilkins said:
I don't know, I can't recommend that someone get a 24-120 in good conscience except for travel. Between vignetting, geometric aberrations that vary at different focal lengths, softness at the corners, and the other issues that go with such a wide zoom range, it's just trying to be too many things, plus since low light performance is the OP's concern, it's likely to be slower than he'll need.

Mark, have you tried the 24-120 ?

vignetting,and geometric distortion can easily and automatically corrected in post production

The D800 works fine at ISO 3200 and with VR11 you can use a fairly low shutter speeds of 4 is fine in nearly all situations

Yes it may be it is a tad soft at the corners, but if that is critical, a prime lens such as the 105 macro can be added later. The 24-120 it will certainly be a lot sharper than the 18-200 that crude is using at the moment

if it going to just on lens, the 24-120 is Nikon's best allrounder

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

crude said:
How about this guys,
i wait for the d600, and get the 24-70 f2.8 (this should be around the £3000 mark
keep what i have and use it with the d600 in dx mode until i have enough to get a fx prime and 70-200

crude

Re the 600 I cannot comment on a camera that does not exist and I have not used

But I had to wait 2 years from the time the D800 was first rumored to actually getting one

The 18-200 f3.5-5.6 would be waste on a Fx body

If you like this lens but are concerned about low light situations just get a D7000

and save £2000

The big advantage of DX is cost with the D7000 you get a lot of bangs for your bucks

The big advantage of the D800 is quality, that cannot be equalled, but it come at a price and you need one of Nikon's Gold ring lens

The only person in the world, who not happy with his D800, is Ren Crockwell

Get the D800 and the 24 -120 or the 24 70 and be amazed at the quality of your photographs wait for the D600 you wish you had bought the 800 today

PS with inflation you might not even be able to afford a 600 when if /it comes out

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@sevencrossing +1 I think if one is spending £3000 on a camera, the idea of the D800 is really the way to go, with one exception. The issue of shooting motorsports, and the need for a long lens, big ISO, one may want to go currently with the D7000 and such as the 70-200 w/ converter, and a shorter lens as well. But, the "gold ring" Nikkors, and a D800 is the quality way to go. And as pointed out, the D600 does not have a track record as yet and when it arrives is unknown.

Posted 10 months ago #