A new idea: 16-35 + some primes

[sweetsonic]

I have:

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound? I'm looking to go to FX but I'm not loaded with extra cash. I figure I could sell the 24-70mm (which I do love a lot, but not as much as I thought on DX - just not quite wide enough), which would cover the price of the 16-35 and the 50mm 1.4. Perhaps try them on the D90 until the next entry level FX comes out and then sell my D90 kit + 60mm macro (which I also love but just don't use as much) and snag up a used D700 plus some extra cash to cover the difference. Then get the 85mm when more cash is available.

I figure its a cheaper and more efficient way to go to FX than collecting the "Holy Trinity", plus I'm really liking the idea of using more primes. The 16-35 would be mostly used for landscapes and outside stuff.

 

[anotherMike]

I don't really like buying lenses over and over, and thus, selling the 24-70 doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if you're wanting to go the FX route, yea, you could pick up a D700, and the 16-35 is a very nice fit on that camera (be aware, though, that when you move into the higher rez bodies, I'm talking D7000 DX and anything else that comes along, the lens moves from "very nice" to just "nice" so there is risk in that you may be re-buying that guy too - it depends on how long you believe you'll stick with the D700 (and you can stick with that body for a long time).

Save yourself some money and get the 50/1.8G instead of the 1.4G. I've got both, and contrary to the thoughts of some folks who feel compelled to constantly defend the 1.4 even though they've never shot the 1.8, the 1.8G is the better lens and enough other reviews are coming out to support my own opinion now.

The 85/1.4G will be an awesome cornerstone "buy once, don't worry about it for a decade" lens down the road, but it will hurt the budget. However, it's not really that much longer than the 70 end of the 24-70. See why I don't advise selling that one?

In fact, on a D700, you could get a 20 prime - get a used one - it's not a stellar lens by any means, but on the relatively forgiving D700, it absolutely will get you by. It's good there - just it's another lens that won't make it when you move up the resolution chain - hence go find one used and cheap. 20 is pretty wide on FX too, not sure you really will need to go much wider than that.

-m

 

[sweetsonic]

I don't really like buying lenses over and over, and thus, selling the 24-70 doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if you're wanting to go the FX route, yea, you could pick up a D700, and the 16-35 is a very nice fit on that camera (be aware, though, that when you move into the higher rez bodies, I'm talking D7000 DX and anything else that comes along, the lens moves from "very nice" to just "nice" so there is risk in that you may be re-buying that guy too - it depends on how long you believe you'll stick with the D700 (and you can stick with that body for a long time).

I understand you there. The problem is that if I keep the 24-70 and go FX, then that will be my only lens, at least for a good while because of $$$ flow. Didn't know about the high rez limitation for the 16-35, I'll have to look into that.

Save yourself some money and get the 50/1.8G instead of the 1.4G. I've got both, and contrary to the thoughts of some folks who feel compelled to constantly defend the 1.4 even though they've never shot the 1.8, the 1.8G is the better lens and enough other reviews are coming out to support my own opinion now.

My only concern is with bokeh quality...what do you think about the two compared there?

The 85/1.4G will be an awesome cornerstone "buy once, don't worry about it for a decade" lens down the road, but it will hurt the budget. However, it's not really that much longer than the 70 end of the 24-70. See why I don't advise selling that one?

I would be looking for an 85 f/1.4D, not the G. Again, $$$. If you're really trying to isolate you subject, especially in low light, I still think 1.4 primes make a big difference, even over an amazing lens like the 24-70.

In fact, on a D700, you could get a 20 prime - get a used one - it's not a stellar lens by any means, but on the relatively forgiving D700, it absolutely will get you by. It's good there - just it's another lens that won't make it when you move up the resolution chain - hence go find one used and cheap. 20 is pretty wide on FX too, not sure you really will need to go much wider than that.

-m

 

[Guidenet]

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

I own and love my D700 camera. I also own a D300 which is similar to your D90 in output. If I were to move to the D700 in your case, I'd keep the zoom and the 60 f/2.8, then add the wonderful 16-35 later.

I don't know which 60 f/2.8 you own, but my advise refers to the AFS G series, not the AFD model. Both are FX lenses, but in my opinion the G is superb on the D700 and I've owned both.

Like Mike said, if you go your route, I'd get the new 50 f/1.8 G over the f/1.4. I think it's a better lens by a smidgen. By the time you've stopped the f/1.4 down a little, they are both similar except the f/1.8 model focuses faster. Nikon really hit a home run with this new lens. At $219, it's a no-brainer.

I suppose you could sell the 24-70 f/2.8 if you don't use the middle range much, but it also really shines on the D700 for which it was made. Along with the 16-35 f/4, I can't think of a better chunk of glass if you already own it. I'm not sure why you bought it for the D90 with your superb kit lens, but why sell for a loss now when moving to the D700?

Overall, I'm not sure what you're thinking about doing or why. Have you mastered your D90 yet? It's a great camera. That kit lens and your macro really is all you need to really create some great images, the macro being a wonderful portrait lens. Buying new bodies and a new set of lenses will not make you a better photographer. It only means your learning curve gets set back a notch.

Besides, without some extra cash, I don't think selling the D90 and the rest will get you a used D700 and the three lenses. Not by a good bit. Let's say the D700 falls well under $2000 which I"m not sure it will. You're still looking at somewhat under $4000 for the kit. If your D90 and gear fetch $2200 to $2500, you're still not within reach.

I'd ask myself some questions first. Do you love the gear collecting or photography? Be honest with yourself. Can you stay in manual and know what you're doing? Do you automatically know all the full f/stops in aperture and full stops in shutter speed by heart? Do you undstand their relationships and can apply it on the run? If you're unsure about the above, I'd say you have a bit to learn before spending more money on gear. I'd master fully what I have first and then when you hit limitations, consider upgrading.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[azoele]

It is one of the few lenses that really stand out on a D700.

I owned and sold the 16-35, as, for my experience, it was not good enough. It is a sharp lens, but not quite up to the top level nikkors in terms of microcontrast and ability to make images pop. The 24-70 can turn almost anything into a strong, punchy image by itself.

Plus, I was not sold on VR: the mirror is so heavy on the D700 that you just can't go below 1/15 anyway. I know many will venture lower claiming success, but to me, it has always been impossible ... On the D90 instead, I went as low as 1/8 successfully, and 1/10 or so with very sharp results on the 70-200 VR II, given that mirror slap is non existant compared to the D700.

The fact that it is F4 is the last nail on the coffin: f2.8 is useful even for landscape, and when it gets late there is no substitute for speed... It may seem little, but it is the difference between a very grainy iso6400 and a nice 3200 shot, or between a nice 3200 and an excellent 1600 shot. Not to mention those cases when you really need iso12800, which is terrible on D700, and you could get away with iso 6400, or those other cases when a little bit more of isolation at f2.8 would be welcome.
In a word: there's a reason it costs a lot less than the 14-24...

RE: your 24-70. I is an eminently useful focal length on FX, ranging from very wide (24mm) to short tele, always with a nice isolation at ƒ2.8. It is one of the best lenses in the lineup, with impressively fast focus (the 16-35 is quite slow in comparison).

Also, consider that, with your plan, you'd have a very slow lens and two very fast ones, meaning at lower light you'll only use 50 and 85...

So, one suggestion would be: keep the 24-70, and pair it with a 105/135DC ? those are very nice lenses, with an incredible rendition that make you reach for them way more often than you should, and can be shot at F2 with very good results. You'd be covered 24-105/135, ƒ2-2.8, with excellent quality glass. Again, I love my 105DC, as it has such a peculiar rendering, with smooth bokeh, that I practically shoot it only at f2-> 2.8. By f2.8 it is better than the 70-200VR II, by the way...

As to the 85... if it is the 1.4D version, beware: focusing is not very reliable at a distance wide open, and sharpness itself declines markedly in that case too; better think of it as a 85 1.4/2 for very near subjects, and as a 85 ƒ2.8+ for more distant ones. The G seems to solve this keeping great sharpness and af precision at a distance... for a price, of course... :-(

Good luck with your choice,
Lory
--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

 

[wcowan]

G'day sweetsonic

I have:

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound?

This is almost my grab and run or light travel bag. I don't carry a 50 though. The D700 with 16-35 f/4 and 85mm 1.4 is a versatile and light FX kit. For any people shots, no brainer, the 85 is on the camera. The zoom covers pretty much everything else. You won't use the 50 much with this combo.

The 24-70 is a great event lens, but I wouldn't like it in my bag all day. It doesn't wow me like the other two.
--
William Cowan

See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com

 

[Lawrie Silverberg]

Overall, I'm not sure what you're thinking about doing or why. Have you mastered your D90 yet? It's a great camera. That kit lens and your macro really is all you need to really create some great images, the macro being a wonderful portrait lens. Buying new bodies and a new set of lenses will not make you a better photographer. It only means your learning curve gets set back a notch.

Besides, without some extra cash, I don't think selling the D90 and the rest will get you a used D700 and the three lenses. Not by a good bit. Let's say the D700 falls well under $2000 which I"m not sure it will. You're still looking at somewhat under $4000 for the kit. If your D90 and gear fetch $2200 to $2500, you're still not within reach.

Brilliant post! WADR, the OP seems to be going all over the place too fast. Used Nikon gear holds it's value. I don't think the D700's will be going for peanuts. The D90 is a great camera. If you think you've outgrown it then move to FX and go slowly with your lenses. Lens swapping is an expensive hobby and IMHO a waste of money. You don't need super expensive equipment to take good pics, although it is good for the ego
Lawrie

 

[sweetsonic]

Overall, I'm not sure what you're thinking about doing or why. Have you mastered your D90 yet? It's a great camera. That kit lens and your macro really is all you need to really create some great images, the macro being a wonderful portrait lens. Buying new bodies and a new set of lenses will not make you a better photographer. It only means your learning curve gets set back a notch.

Besides, without some extra cash, I don't think selling the D90 and the rest will get you a used D700 and the three lenses. Not by a good bit. Let's say the D700 falls well under $2000 which I"m not sure it will. You're still looking at somewhat under $4000 for the kit. If your D90 and gear fetch $2200 to $2500, you're still not within reach.

Brilliant post! WADR, the OP seems to be going all over the place too fast. Used Nikon gear holds it's value. I don't think the D700's will be going for peanuts. The D90 is a great camera. If you think you've outgrown it then move to FX and go slowly with your lenses. Lens swapping is an expensive hobby and IMHO a waste of money. You don't need super expensive equipment to take good pics, although it is good for the ego
Lawrie

I'm not sure why its so shocking that someone would desire to move to FX at some point and re-think their glass choices. I think it happens all the time...and it doesn't necessitate the stars aligning or my having the perfect photographic knowledge or "mastering" my current camera body. Why the assumption from the beginning that I'm just a gear hog?

You just said that used Nikon gear holds its value and then said lens swapping is an expensive hobby and waste of $$$. Nikon gear holding its value is exactly why lens swapping is common - because you can change glass as your photographic needs change without losing a lot of money. I've never lost more than $50-100 when selling used gear and I've only sold two lenses - despite assumptions that I'm a gear packrat.

Anyway, I'll worry about the $$$ - I was just hoping for some suggestions/critique for lens choices.

 

[sweetsonic]

I have:

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound?

This is almost my grab and run or light travel bag. I don't carry a 50 though. The D700 with 16-35 f/4 and 85mm 1.4 is a versatile and light FX kit. For any people shots, no brainer, the 85 is on the camera. The zoom covers pretty much everything else. You won't use the 50 much with this combo.

The 24-70 is a great event lens, but I wouldn't like it in my bag all day. It doesn't wow me like the other two.
--
William Cowan

See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com

Thanks for the critique. Would you have any other recommendations in place of those two lenses, or in addition to?

 

[sweetsonic]

It is one of the few lenses that really stand out on a D700.

I owned and sold the 16-35, as, for my experience, it was not good enough. It is a sharp lens, but not quite up to the top level nikkors in terms of microcontrast and ability to make images pop. The 24-70 can turn almost anything into a strong, punchy image by itself.

Plus, I was not sold on VR: the mirror is so heavy on the D700 that you just can't go below 1/15 anyway. I know many will venture lower claiming success, but to me, it has always been impossible ... On the D90 instead, I went as low as 1/8 successfully, and 1/10 or so with very sharp results on the 70-200 VR II, given that mirror slap is non existant compared to the D700.

The fact that it is F4 is the last nail on the coffin: f2.8 is useful even for landscape, and when it gets late there is no substitute for speed... It may seem little, but it is the difference between a very grainy iso6400 and a nice 3200 shot, or between a nice 3200 and an excellent 1600 shot. Not to mention those cases when you really need iso12800, which is terrible on D700, and you could get away with iso 6400, or those other cases when a little bit more of isolation at f2.8 would be welcome.
In a word: there's a reason it costs a lot less than the 14-24...

RE: your 24-70. I is an eminently useful focal length on FX, ranging from very wide (24mm) to short tele, always with a nice isolation at ƒ2.8. It is one of the best lenses in the lineup, with impressively fast focus (the 16-35 is quite slow in comparison).

Also, consider that, with your plan, you'd have a very slow lens and two very fast ones, meaning at lower light you'll only use 50 and 85...

So, one suggestion would be: keep the 24-70, and pair it with a 105/135DC ? those are very nice lenses, with an incredible rendition that make you reach for them way more often than you should, and can be shot at F2 with very good results. You'd be covered 24-105/135, ƒ2-2.8, with excellent quality glass. Again, I love my 105DC, as it has such a peculiar rendering, with smooth bokeh, that I practically shoot it only at f2-> 2.8. By f2.8 it is better than the 70-200VR II, by the way...

As to the 85... if it is the 1.4D version, beware: focusing is not very reliable at a distance wide open, and sharpness itself declines markedly in that case too; better think of it as a 85 1.4/2 for very near subjects, and as a 85 ƒ2.8+ for more distant ones. The G seems to solve this keeping great sharpness and af precision at a distance... for a price, of course... :-(

Good luck with your choice,
Lory
--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

Interesting. Maybe it would be worthwhile to get the camera first, keep the 24-70 and see how it feels. Like I said before, if I keep the 24-70, i wouldn't have a lot of free cash for anything else. If I was going to have 1 $1500+ lens and only 1, I'd probably go for the 14-24 over the 24-70 - I just like ultra wide. But we'll see. I still don't think the 16-35 is a bad choice. The 85 1.4 goes without saying.

 

[Lawrie Silverberg]

As I said in my post, this is just my opinion. It was not meant as a personal condemnation. This is an open forum and if you ask a question, you'll get lots of opinions, some agreeing with you and some not. They are just opinions.
Lawrie

 

[ofior]

I think that would be a superb kit, but here is a thought you might consider:

If I was doing this, I would only change one thing: Get the 50 f1.8G instead of the 50 f1.4, seems everyone agrees it is a better lens for less money.

I cannot say anything about Mike's comment on the 16-35 in higher rez bodies, do not know enough about that, but it is stellar on a D700.

Ozzie

 

[mgblack74]

There are some very big holes and contradictions in you argument here;

It is one of the few lenses that really stand out on a D700.

I owned and sold the 16-35, as, for my experience, it was not good enough. It is a sharp lens, but not quite up to the top level nikkors in terms of microcontrast and ability to make images pop. The 24-70 can turn almost anything into a strong, punchy image by itself.

Plus, I was not sold on VR: the mirror is so heavy on the D700 that you just can't go below 1/15 anyway. I know many will venture lower claiming success, but to me, it has always been impossible ... On the D90 instead, I went as low as 1/8 successfully, and 1/10 or so with very sharp results on the 70-200 VR II, given that mirror slap is non existant compared to the D700.

Two words: M/Up. No mirror slap to be worried about. I'm shocked you got a clear, steady shot at 1/10 on a 70-200, but couldn't get a steady shot at 1/15 on a 16-35. There is something wrong there.

The fact that it is F4 is the last nail on the coffin: f2.8 is useful even for landscape, and when it gets late there is no substitute for speed... It may seem little, but it is the difference between a very grainy iso6400 and a nice 3200 shot, or between a nice 3200 and an excellent 1600 shot. Not to mention those cases when you really need iso12800, which is terrible on D700, and you could get away with iso 6400, or those other cases when a little bit more of isolation at f2.8 would be welcome.

11mm @ 2.8 on DX has the same or similar DOF as 16mm @ f/4 on FX. And I would take the D700's ISO 3200 over the D90's 1600 any day. With VR you can knock that down to ISo 1600 on the D700. The out put is far superior this way. Then again, I'm not sure what motion you're trying to stop in a landscape photo or why if it were that dark you wouldn't just get a tripod and shoot at base ISO.

In a word: there's a reason it costs a lot less than the 14-24...

RE: your 24-70. I is an eminently useful focal length on FX, ranging from very wide (24mm) to short tele, always with a nice isolation at ƒ2.8. It is one of the best lenses in the lineup, with impressively fast focus (the 16-35 is quite slow in comparison).

Also, consider that, with your plan, you'd have a very slow lens and two very fast ones, meaning at lower light you'll only use 50 and 85...

Or a lens with VR. Shoot a low light scene at f/8,1/8 and you'll see how the 16-35 shines over any other lens.

So, one suggestion would be: keep the 24-70, and pair it with a 105/135DC ? those are very nice lenses, with an incredible rendition that make you reach for them way more often than you should, and can be shot at F2 with very good results. You'd be covered 24-105/135, ƒ2-2.8, with excellent quality glass. Again, I love my 105DC, as it has such a peculiar rendering, with smooth bokeh, that I practically shoot it only at f2-> 2.8. By f2.8 it is better than the 70-200VR II, by the way...

As to the 85... if it is the 1.4D version, beware: focusing is not very reliable at a distance wide open, and sharpness itself declines markedly in that case too; better think of it as a 85 1.4/2 for very near subjects, and as a 85 ƒ2.8+ for more distant ones. The G seems to solve this keeping great sharpness and af precision at a distance... for a price, of course... :-(

True.

Good luck with your choice,
Lory
--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

 

[sweetsonic]

Yeah it looks like the 50mm 1.8G is probably the better option - I've been looking at reviews. Better and cheaper? Who'd have thought it!?

 

[GoldRingNikkor]

I have:

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound?

Doesn't make any sense at all to me. At the moment, you're covered from 28-160 (equivalent). Now you want cover from 16-85 (obviously FX equiv.). So, along with that upgrade to the D700, you're going radically wider in your focal length coverage. At the same time, you complain that the 24-70/2.8 is not quite wide enough on DX - but now, when going FX, you want to sell it even though it would probably become the perfect choice (and wider than your widest lens before!).

I'd sell the 60/2.8 and 18-105 DX, buy a 105/2.8 Micro and be done with it (unless you need longer focal lengths...). For somebody worried about the $$$, your plan seems to be a good way to be wasting them pretty efficiently. Your plan screams "want", not "need". That's o.k., but "want" usually costs a lot more than "need". Just MHO.

 

[Guidenet]

I'm not sure why its so shocking that someone would desire to move to FX at some point and re-think their glass choices. I think it happens all the time...and it doesn't necessitate the stars aligning or my having the perfect photographic knowledge or "mastering" my current camera body. Why the assumption from the beginning that I'm just a gear hog?

There's nothing shocking about moving to FX. I expect more and more will over time. But, why do so if you already have a good camera and haven't yet spent time learning the craft of photography? The art part of photography we all are constantly learning.

Learning and understanding the craft of photography or the science of how it all works is a prerequisite for becoming a photographer, in my opinion. Just owning gear doesn't make one a photographer. For learning this craft, a D90 works as well as a D700 or a Toyo 4x5 field camera. If one is not willing to learn this craft and not willing to become a photographer, I'm not sure why they would want to spend money upgrading gear they still really will not know how to use. At least the D90 has some style modes to help out a non-photographer take better images. A D700 has none. It really is a more basic tool in many ways.

Even with auto modes a photographer understands why the camera chose a particular aperture and shutter speed. If he or she is happy with that choice, he leaves it. If not he changes it using compensation, program shift or manual mode. It doesn't matter. A photographer can do any of these on the fly because it doesn't matter which he chooses as long as he maintains control and knows why he picked the settings. The method used to get to a chosen setting is irrelevant. The camera is just a tool.

If a person doesn't understand the tool and doesn't understand why and how a tool is used, what's the point? It's just snap shooting and no reason to spend more money for that. With regards to snap shooting, one will not generally get better images by upgrading camera or lens. In fact, there's a good chance they'll do worse because as you upgrade the training wheels tend to come off the camera body.

It has nothing to do with stars aligning or mastering your camera "perfectly." It has to do with learning the fundamentals and progressing up until you actually control and create the image you wish. Then, you're a photographer. Then it matters little which camera and what lenses you decide on.

I'm not sure whether you fit this or not. I never said you were a gear hog. I ask you to dig deeper and figure it out for yourself. You may already have mastered the fundamentals. You might already know the full stops by heart and understand how they interact. You might already know and understand how to control the tools and the scene such that you create your image. I don't have a clue. I asked because, if you've not done this, you might wish to do so before taking off the training wheels. You might want to do this before getting into another larger learning curve.

That all said, I think if you truly can afford it, the D700 can make an excellent learning camera. IMO, those training wheel type things like style modes and whatnot can get in the way of learning this craft. I'd just get one lens though and really learn photography. I'd get the D700 and a 50 f/1.8 G prime lens. Store the 24-70 f/2.8 until you think it's time. Sell the rest. Maybe sell the 24-70 as well because there might be something better when you're ready.

I'd start by Googling "The Zone System" and learn how it applies to modern digital photography. Really learn it and you'll be miles ahead of many on these forums. You'll also need to memorize all full stops in aperture and shutter speed. Understand that it's all halving and doubling light. The scene Zones are the same thing. From there, you might start getting books like the kind written by Bryan Peterson and others. If you can stand dry reading, check "The Negative" from your local library.

Many gear heads, including myself, tend to really need to learn the Art side of photography, but I think after the craft side is underway. That's a whole different story and we can talk later if you choose. Try not to get defensive. We're all here to learn and enjoy each other's company. Only you can dig down and decide if any of what I said fits and if you want to travel down that path. It has to be a passion.

Good luck and have fun.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[Uncle Frank]

I have:

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound?

It sounds crowded. As a prime shooter, I like to space the lenses in a kit by at least 2:1. In fact, my favorite kit on the d700 is 20/3.5UD + 60/2.8G + 180/2.8. I close any gaps by moving my feet. There's not enough difference between 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm to carry all 3 at one time.

My advice would be to keep your current lenses (except the 18-105) when you move to the d700, and get a feel for the new FOVs before you start rearranging your kit. You may be surprised at how wide the 24-70 is on FX. To be honest, the 85/1.4D, which was my favorite lens on my d200, is too wide for its purpose on FX.
--
Warm regards, Frank
Grand-Paparazzo
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com

 

[xsimplyjosh]

If you need bokeh and sharp shots, the 85mm f1.4 will do it well perfect. If I was in this case I would keep the 24-70mm if you ever need a flexible zoom and not have the hassle of changing lenses too frequently. It's a fantastic lens when paired up with the D700, it is wide at the 24mm end and I wouldn't sell it if I was you, unless your funds are really limited then by all means do so.

Just my two cents

Josh

I have:

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

I'm thinking of trying:

Nikon D700
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.4

How does this sound? I'm looking to go to FX but I'm not loaded with extra cash. I figure I could sell the 24-70mm (which I do love a lot, but not as much as I thought on DX - just not quite wide enough), which would cover the price of the 16-35 and the 50mm 1.4. Perhaps try them on the D90 until the next entry level FX comes out and then sell my D90 kit + 60mm macro (which I also love but just don't use as much) and snag up a used D700 plus some extra cash to cover the difference. Then get the 85mm when more cash is available.

I figure its a cheaper and more efficient way to go to FX than collecting the "Holy Trinity", plus I'm really liking the idea of using more primes. The 16-35 would be mostly used for landscapes and outside stuff.

--
D7000 & 24-70mm f/2.8G & 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII

 

[Leos]

To be honest, the 85/1.4D, which was my favorite lens on my d200, is too wide for its purpose on FX.

Uhm ... ? So they designed that lens (the 85mm ..) for use on 35mm cameras. They failed miserably. Then got saved by the invention of the digital APS-c sensor, that made this lens one of the most popular primes ever ?

 

[Uncle Frank]

To be honest, the 85/1.4D, which was my favorite lens on my d200, is too wide for its purpose on FX.

Uhm ... ? So they designed that lens (the 85mm ..) for use on 35mm cameras. They failed miserably. Then got saved by the invention of the digital APS-c sensor, that made this lens one of the most popular primes ever ?

Hi, Leos. I bought my 85/1.4D in 2004, when I was shooting DX. I used it for tight presentations... headshots and head & shoulder shots. It offered comfortable working distance, and pleasant telephoto compression for the background. On FX, it's too wide for undistorted headshots, and places me closer than I like to the subject even for head & shoulder shots. It's a beautiful lens that I rarely use now that I work with a d700. So to restate my critique...

To be honest, the 85/1.4D, which was my favorite lens on my d200, is too wide for my intended use on FX.

That doesn't mean the 85/1.4 might not be perfect for you or for the original poster, Sweetsonic, but I think it's risky to buy an expensive lens for fx before buying the camera. Jmho.

--
Warm regards, Frank
Grand-Paparazzo
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com