Chromobotia Macracanthus
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 2
Agree with alot of your points. Alot of noobs on here walking about with everything they own in a backpack lol.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Start big or small?
- Thread starter RichS123
- Start date
vaxn8r
Forum Enthusiast
Thinks that make me LOL are things I've done in the past. Things I can relate to. Otherwise, it's just a superiority complex, which really isn't that funny. I assume you meant the former and not the latter.
But yeah, the point is my 70-200 goes nowhere except where I'm want it specifically for a defined shot or my kids soccer, basketball, or maybe kids at the beach. I just don't ever bring it just in case there's a good shot.
My walk about kit is a D700 and 24 or 50 but not both. Occasionally a 16-35 and then that alone. It could easily be the 24-70 but I didn't go that way.
But I get the OP's angst about fear that eventually he'll eventually end up with all three of the holy trinity but will have foregone the $400 discount on each if he doesn't buy them now with his camera. Tough one. If you know you know. I'm satisfied I didn't do it that way but honestly, if I had, I'd be just as happy but maybe poorer. And I still would have bought the fast primes but very likely not the 16-35. But the 16-35, 24-70 and 14-24 really are different animals in their own right. One simply cannot replace the other because they each have their own strengths and weaknesses and focal lengths, as all lenses. Everything is a trade off.
If it were me contemplating buying the holy trinity in one fell swoop I would buy a D700 with them and be done with it. Same logic IMO and the lenses match the body better. But, starting with the D700, unlike those pro zooms, it is going to have a steeper learning curve than starting with the D7000. Still, if you know, you know. Jump in and do it.
But it's not like buying all this stuff will end it. There's a lot of other stuff more important than camera and lens choice. Your PC, monitor and software have to be right up there in importance or you might as well just use a P&S. And that doesn't even include bag options;-)
But yeah, the point is my 70-200 goes nowhere except where I'm want it specifically for a defined shot or my kids soccer, basketball, or maybe kids at the beach. I just don't ever bring it just in case there's a good shot.
My walk about kit is a D700 and 24 or 50 but not both. Occasionally a 16-35 and then that alone. It could easily be the 24-70 but I didn't go that way.
But I get the OP's angst about fear that eventually he'll eventually end up with all three of the holy trinity but will have foregone the $400 discount on each if he doesn't buy them now with his camera. Tough one. If you know you know. I'm satisfied I didn't do it that way but honestly, if I had, I'd be just as happy but maybe poorer. And I still would have bought the fast primes but very likely not the 16-35. But the 16-35, 24-70 and 14-24 really are different animals in their own right. One simply cannot replace the other because they each have their own strengths and weaknesses and focal lengths, as all lenses. Everything is a trade off.
If it were me contemplating buying the holy trinity in one fell swoop I would buy a D700 with them and be done with it. Same logic IMO and the lenses match the body better. But, starting with the D700, unlike those pro zooms, it is going to have a steeper learning curve than starting with the D7000. Still, if you know, you know. Jump in and do it.
But it's not like buying all this stuff will end it. There's a lot of other stuff more important than camera and lens choice. Your PC, monitor and software have to be right up there in importance or you might as well just use a P&S. And that doesn't even include bag options;-)
I recommend those. The kit lens you should choose depending on what you are going to shoot but if you read the review below, this is a great lens for walk around and general use.
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm
If you are concerned about low light, get a 50mm 1.4, Sigma or Nikon. You will be set.
My kit lens was the 18-70 and was very good for just about everything except telephoto. I have the 70-200 2.8 which allows for low light telephoto, good for sports, like kids soccer and recitals. the 50mm is good for portrait, indoor without flash and a good general purpose lens.
3 lenses make for a light bag, with a lot of versatility. If you really want wide angle then later add the 14-24.
You have a lightweight good performing kit lens for general purpose that has VR. You have an inexpensive prime 50mm good for low light and narrow DOF, for telephoto 70-200 2.8 with VR IMHO it does not get better than that. I have these lenses and do everything with them. Since I do a lot of sports, the 70-200 gets the most use, but when it is vacation and family stuff, the kit lens goes on for great range. Low light and portrait and shallow dof, 50mm comes out.
Also you now have2 VR lenses and 2 FF lenses if you decide to upgrade, and with the upgrade you get another kit lens for FF.
These lenses are a logical choice and cover just about everything at a reasonable price. I have the 14-24 that doesn't get used as much so I would suggest against that. I have a 24-70 but find on a crop camera, the range is not very good, I prefer the kit lens and the difference is quality is not that great. If I started all over again, I would start out with the kit mentioned above. It covers just about everything (except macro but I have a macro lens that gets no use, I will try to do more macro this year by forcing myself to use this lens). Good luck to you.
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm
If you are concerned about low light, get a 50mm 1.4, Sigma or Nikon. You will be set.
My kit lens was the 18-70 and was very good for just about everything except telephoto. I have the 70-200 2.8 which allows for low light telephoto, good for sports, like kids soccer and recitals. the 50mm is good for portrait, indoor without flash and a good general purpose lens.
3 lenses make for a light bag, with a lot of versatility. If you really want wide angle then later add the 14-24.
You have a lightweight good performing kit lens for general purpose that has VR. You have an inexpensive prime 50mm good for low light and narrow DOF, for telephoto 70-200 2.8 with VR IMHO it does not get better than that. I have these lenses and do everything with them. Since I do a lot of sports, the 70-200 gets the most use, but when it is vacation and family stuff, the kit lens goes on for great range. Low light and portrait and shallow dof, 50mm comes out.
Also you now have2 VR lenses and 2 FF lenses if you decide to upgrade, and with the upgrade you get another kit lens for FF.
These lenses are a logical choice and cover just about everything at a reasonable price. I have the 14-24 that doesn't get used as much so I would suggest against that. I have a 24-70 but find on a crop camera, the range is not very good, I prefer the kit lens and the difference is quality is not that great. If I started all over again, I would start out with the kit mentioned above. It covers just about everything (except macro but I have a macro lens that gets no use, I will try to do more macro this year by forcing myself to use this lens). Good luck to you.
and save yourself from making a poor and costly decision one way or another. Get the camera with the 18-105 kit lens, learn how ,to use it, then rent the lense you are considering and then decide. This hands on experience is the best way to make a prudent high dollar decision. Would you buy a new car without a test drive? I don't think so!
Although I love the optical quality of the pro lenses, I prefer to have all APS-C lenses because of their smaller size, weight, the better handling on the D7000, and of course, less expense. You may find you don't really need to own large pro lenses either, and just rent them for weddings or such, when you want to. That's what I do.
You might want to read this post as well.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=37690593
Best regards,
Jon
Although I love the optical quality of the pro lenses, I prefer to have all APS-C lenses because of their smaller size, weight, the better handling on the D7000, and of course, less expense. You may find you don't really need to own large pro lenses either, and just rent them for weddings or such, when you want to. That's what I do.
You might want to read this post as well.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=37690593
Best regards,
Jon
Skipper494
Forum Pro
Buy full frame lenses, then, when you go to FF, you're all set.
+2. If you think you're gonna eventually move to FF, why mess around with dx lenses? Also, you said you can afford it. The lenses aren't that big, jeez...I'm sure you carried your kids around, a camera with a pro zoom is not that big a deal, you'll get used to it. It was said before and I'll repeat... I think it's easier to learn on a fixed aperture lens or a nice fast prime. These lenses also give you that nice artistic bokeh you're looking for in your portraits. The camera body doesn't really matter as much as the lenses. If I were in your shoes, I would wait for the D800 to be announced (supposedly very soon by all the rumors) and buy that body or purchase the D7000 now and use it as a 2nd body once you move to FF. The crop factor is nice for distant stuff like wildlife and sports in good light.
Rich, stop thinking, pick up some gear amd start shooting. It's very painful to lay out the cash for the gear, but once I started using the body, lens, strobe, tripod, etc...I never regretted the decision. Photography is such a fun and addicting hobby and one you can actually share with your family. Once your wife or S/O sees the pics, she'll say you should of got the camera sooner.
Digetydog
Senior Member
Like the original OP, I have a D7000. Last week, my 70-200m VRI (Merry Christmas to me) finally arrived.l Today, I took some test photos with it to make sure it worked properly (it was used and I had the option to return it). It did.
Simply put, holy crap is it heavy on my camera. Indeed, it is so heavy that it is difficult to hold steady without concentrating.
If you know that you need that heavy a lens, by means buy it (I did b/c I have certain uses in mind). But, starting with it is a big deal.
Simply put, holy crap is it heavy on my camera. Indeed, it is so heavy that it is difficult to hold steady without concentrating.
If you know that you need that heavy a lens, by means buy it (I did b/c I have certain uses in mind). But, starting with it is a big deal.
HiRez
Forum Enthusiast
Haven't those same rumors been going around for over 2 years though? Seriously, even back then people were predicting it HAD to be coming out next month, then the next month, all the way until now. It could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Prices of D700 are dropping, so you can either take that as a sign that a new one is coming, or a sign that you can get a great deal on a D700 and have it today.
Guess what? I have been following intensely at the rumors for about three months, and I have contacted nreps, they all point towards an announcement in the summer and release near the fall. There is a 5-6 month gap period + 2 month to get d800 in stock which is a lot of time. Therefore I suggest you to get the d700 now and then upgrade your dslr when the replacement comes out. I guarantee you that you will get crisp and fantastic shots with the d700 now.
Bjorn_L
Veteran Member
I would start with the 16-85, 70-300 and 35mm f1.8.
The 16-85 & 35mm are DX only, but all three are "keepers". Meaning you are very unlikely to want to sell them so long as you own a DX camera.
Even if you eventually add a FX body, you may be tempted to keep both the DX body and lenses as a light travel kit. I kept my d90 for quite a while after getting the d700.
The 14-24 and 24-70 are fantastic lenses. And, I appreciate what they can do. But even after I have a FX body, I am still not tempted. But, I was before I owned a FX. I found I prefer a mixture of primes and zooms. Many others find the same. A good prime generally gives the best results. But, I personally find it handy to have a few zooms too. So for me, the wide zoom would be a 16-35 f/4 since that mixes better with my primes. Similarly, the 24-120 f4 is much more tempting to me than the 24-70 for the same reason.
So, start moderate in price. Learn what you like and slowly (over time) move in that direction.
ps: the reason I suggested the Nikon 35mm f1.8g is that it is one of the best bargains in a prime ever. And, will give you a nice low-light "normal" lens to mix in with your two zooms.
--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
The 16-85 & 35mm are DX only, but all three are "keepers". Meaning you are very unlikely to want to sell them so long as you own a DX camera.
Even if you eventually add a FX body, you may be tempted to keep both the DX body and lenses as a light travel kit. I kept my d90 for quite a while after getting the d700.
The 14-24 and 24-70 are fantastic lenses. And, I appreciate what they can do. But even after I have a FX body, I am still not tempted. But, I was before I owned a FX. I found I prefer a mixture of primes and zooms. Many others find the same. A good prime generally gives the best results. But, I personally find it handy to have a few zooms too. So for me, the wide zoom would be a 16-35 f/4 since that mixes better with my primes. Similarly, the 24-120 f4 is much more tempting to me than the 24-70 for the same reason.
So, start moderate in price. Learn what you like and slowly (over time) move in that direction.
ps: the reason I suggested the Nikon 35mm f1.8g is that it is one of the best bargains in a prime ever. And, will give you a nice low-light "normal" lens to mix in with your two zooms.
--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum