D800 or Nikon 24-70 2.8

the_local_jacko

the_local_jacko

Messages
326
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I want to move the above setup within the next year or so. I currently have a D90, 18-105 and 50mm 1.8 lenses. I have some cash available but only enough for one at the moment with the other likely to be in a years time. IQ is fundamentally my priority, followed closely by better Low light performance.

My heart says go D800 but the obvious issue there is it leaves me with a 50mm prime unless I can pick up a stop gap zoom. I mainly shoot portraits so I could prob survive but it would be a limited set up. I have the option of a loan of a Tamron 18-50 2.8 but again no good on FX.

My head says go 24-70 and then I can use it on my D90 for now but the lens will have a very different dynamic when I move to FX. I have also read articles suggesting that lens would be "wasted" on a D90.

I guess it boils down to glass or hardware? The sensible option would be glass but wondered what thoughts were?
 
Bodies drop in price, lenses not as much so.

The 24-70 will hold its value a lot better than a D800. Who knows, D800s may be available for less than a grand this time next year.

Get your crystal ball out mate.............:D
 
What he said exactly :cool:
I've just moved from a D700 and one of the lenses was the 24-70, to a pair of 5D Mkii's - it was a decent setup and I deliberately didn't plump for the D800 as it wouldn't have offered me (different for everyone though) anything extra...just less in my bank. Or how about the D700, the new Sigma 35mm 1.4mm (incredible lens) and that would leave you a heafty wack to buy all the accoutrements and an extra lens or two ;)
 
Why not consider the D600?
 
We may be in agreement there David. Although a low mileage D700 will be cheaper than a new D600, the D600 will have the full Nikon warranty while the D700 will only have whatever the dealer's offering. Of course, if the OP reckons to have enough for the other option in a year, there's a good chance that second hand D800s will be available within his budget well before then - even new prices are very likely to have dropped fairly significantly.

If it's a "Must be new" scenario and an either or, I would upgrade the lens - while it is a different AoV on Dx rather than Fx, it's still a shortish standard zoom on Dx, albeit a bit longer than it will be once it's on Fx. The go for the lens option is even more valid if the offer of the 18-50 f/2.8 Tamron is taken up - that will cover the (effective) FoV on the D90 that the 24-70 will on Fx and even give an extra 5mm's worth of length (in 35mm terms...)

Yup, sold to myself! 24-70 f/2.8 now, Fx body when funds permit. (Although I was fortunate enough to do both at the same time, although I went for the cheaper option of the Sigma lens which I bought instore so could check I had a good [and it's a very good!] copy...)
 
I would always choose a lens over a body. So from my point of you I would go for the 24-70 first, it will give you better results than your kit lens on the D90 anyway.

As above, the D600 is a good option
 
As the OP's concerns are...

IQ is fundamentally my priority, followed closely by better Low light performance.
Click to expand...

Then I'd say it's either a D600 or a D800. The D700 has the quality full frame will give, but the 12MP is really limiting for someone who's main concern is quality. I'd actually discount the idea of the D700 entirely for someone who places such importance on quality.
 
Sensor resolution is no the same thing as image quality. Obviously, higher resolution is advantage, allows for larger prints and gives you more cropping freedom. However, 12mp is still a great resolution for vast majority of purposes. Looking at the stunning pictures taken by Nikon D700/D3/D3s users on last olympic games or in last few editions of National Geographics I don't think that average D700 user might feel limited by having lesser-IQ camera.

While D700 specs might look dated compared to recent newcomers. However please bear in mind that it is still 8th best digital camera ever made when it comes to high ISO performance (out of 200 handred DSLRs and mirror-less cameras tested by DxOMark). It can still take stunning images.

D800 beats D700 in most of the parameters. However, D700 still has deeper memory buffer and faster framerate with grip than either D600 and D800 second only to D3/D3s/D4. Then it has the original control layout many people like and produces pictures that are easier to develop/process/archive on average computer.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for their ideas.

I hadn't really considered the D600 simply because there really isn't a huge gap in terms of price between that and the D800. It boils down to around £400 on current prices. If I plumped for something like a D800 then I see that as me sorted for years to come and gives me all the room I will ever need to grow in to. No doubt this can be fulfilled by the D600 also however.

Only 6-7 months ago D700 was still the camera of choice for many pros and probably still is. It is an option that interests me but I do wonder whether I will still lust for the D800. The option of a 24-70 and D700 could be good as the D700 would hold its value to a degree I guess and I can reevaluate in a year.

The constraint I have is that it needs to be from somewhere that can be purchased via CC. I have been watching MPB with interest but at the moment there is neither a 24-70 or D700 on there. There's been some great deals on the classifieds which I have had to watch come and go.
 
mpe said:
While D700 specs might look dated compared to recent newcomers. However please bear in mind that it is still 8th best digital camera ever made when it comes to high ISO performance (out of 200 handred DSLRs and mirror-less cameras tested by DxOMark). It can still take stunning images.
Click to expand...


All that is academic. The OP is concerned with having the highest image quality, and recommending a 12MP camera is not something I will be doing.

Yes, the D700 is a great camera, and yes, I am fully aware that image quality is not solely a product of resolution... however, given the OP's requirements, the D700 shouldn't really be something to consider given the other options available.

I've already disproved the D800 "OMG Massive File" issue by sending a RAW file to someone with a 7 year old Acer laptop, and he managed to work with it perfectly well.

It's called progress. The D700 has had a good run, and those that already have one shouldn't feel that they have anything inferior, but to recommend one now?.. I just don't see the point. It's no longer the best ISO performer. Continuous shooting speed without the grip is roughly the same as the D600, and unless you need more than 5.5fps shouldn't be an issue. Realistically, how many of us actually need 5fps? The D600's buffer is only a couple of frames short of the D700, and can still manage 15 RAW files in a burst... more than enough for pretty much everyone.

Considering the D700 is still around £900 used... it's just not worth it.

The ONLY thing to consider with the D600 is the tightly bunched AF targets, but again, depending upon what you shoot, it may well be a non issue altogether.

D700 owners just need to stop getting defensive when someone suggests it's a little long in the tooth now. The D700 is just not the camera the OP needs, and recommending one just because you own one (which I've no idea if you do or not... but I'm willing to bet that you do) is not really wise IMO.


I'd go for the D600.


[edit] If the OP sells his D90 and kit lens, he may well realise £350ish... and given that he has saved £400 by getting the D600, he's only roughly a couple of hundred short of a 24-70. Worth thinking about if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Just a few things about the D700...

Better AF and points
Better Build
More manual controls
1/8000

The D600 has the better sensor, but if you need these and want to save a few quid the D700 is still a good camera. Its also proven in terms of reliability. If it means the difference between a camera and a very good lens like the 24-70 or a camera thats 'better' and a average lens, Id get the D700 but everyone has different priorities which is fair enough.
 
Last edited:
Care to list all the Nikon cameras that have proven to be "unreliable? :)

The D600 does indeed have a better sensor... and the OP lists image quality and high ISO performance as his fundamental priority.

I love the way people ignore the OP in threads liek this :)
 
The OP's question is whether to get the D800 or the 24-70 lens, he has not mentioned any other body, so suggesting a D700 or D600 is redundant on that count alone.

If he gets the D800, he would only have the 50/1.8 to use on it, so to all you D800 users would this be a problem.

His heart tells him to get the D800, so nothing will sway him from that will it :D
 
So I think the outcome so far seems to be buy both. :-)

I have £1600 to play with (maybe towards £2000 with the sale of the D90, kit lens and accessories)

Its a really interesting debate here. It has brought to a head all the kinds of things I had been thinking and its good to hear people's views.

I thought about the PayPal option but most require a bank transfer unless I can PayPal myself somehow to get the cash into my account to then do a BT. I have 16 months interest free on my CC hence why I want to stick to using it.
 
Martyn... said:
The OP's question is whether to get the D800 or the 24-70 lens, he has not mentioned any other body, so suggesting a D700 or D600 is redundant on that count alone.

If he gets the D800, he would only have the 50/1.8 to use on it, so to all you D800 users would this be a problem.

His heart tells him to get the D800, so nothing will sway him from that will it :D
Click to expand...


When I bought my D800 I was still awaiting my 24-70 to come through. So I bought a 50mm 1.8G to test the camera out. All I had besides for FX was my old 80-200, which was already up for sale with my DX lenses.

Just having the 50mm on it to start was no problem at all. Its a cracking little lens, no issues with how it'll perform on the D800, and if you wanted a little variety you could always fetch a used 85mm to compliment it until you can afford the 24-70.

In this case i would buy the camera first, D800 ... no question. Get that 50mm to get using it, and save for the 24-70.
 
Back to the original question. 24-70/2.8 or the new body?

Depeds what you shoot. 24-70/2.8 is a great tool for a wedding photographer or taking photos for newspaper. I don't personally like it. I shoot wildlife (no need for a lens like this), astrophoto (24-70 is only average optically due to curvy focal plane, astigmatism and is not fast enough) and travel/stret photography (too bulky, I strongly prefer a wide-angle + light 35mm prime).

I would say get D800, sell your 18-105 and get 35mm prime for start. Either Sigma 35/1.4 (better and cheaper than Nikon) or even the old 35/2D. Maybe you'll realize you can live without "basic" zoom like I do.
 
You realise the sigma 35mm 1.4 is not a cheap lens, right? it's also not light. Here we go off on another tangent ...
 
twist said:
Not unreliable but not without issues, the D600 with dusty/oily sensor, the D800 with soft left side/AF issues?

Yeah strange that.....
Click to expand...

D800 AF issue resolved. You will not buy a new D800 now that has it unless it's been sat on a shelf for months.

Sensors get dirty... then you clean them... that's why there's a setting in the menu to clean the sensor.

Why is me suggesting the D600 ignoring the OP's requirements?? As I see it, it's either the D600 or the D800.
 
mpe said:
Back to the original question. 24-70/2.8 or the new body?

Depeds what you shoot. 24-70/2.8 is a great tool for a wedding photographer or taking photos for newspaper. I don't personally like it. I shoot wildlife (no need for a lens like this), astrophoto (24-70 is only average optically due to curvy focal plane, astigmatism and is not fast enough) and travel/stret photography (too bulky, I strongly prefer a wide-angle + light 35mm prime).

I would say get D800, sell your 18-105 and get 35mm prime for start. Either Sigma 35/1.4 (better and cheaper than Nikon) or even the old 35/2D. Maybe you'll realize you can live without "basic" zoom like I do.
Click to expand...

I mainly shoot portraits and rarely anything else except breaks away etc. It's usually all natural light and in a range of lighting conditions but I also have recently acquired a home studio set up in quite a compact space (9x12ft) and I primarily shoot children (my son usually) and the thinking behind a 24-70 is that children rarely stay still so it gives me some flexibility. The 50mm prime is a sharp lens and I would have no issues shooting with this on a D800 as has been suggested above apart from the fact is be running all over the place to keep up with my son.
 
twist said:
Just a few things about the D700...

Better AF and points
Better Build
More manual controls
1/8000

The D600 has the better sensor, but if you need these and want to save a few quid the D700 is still a good camera. Its also proven in terms of reliability. If it means the difference between a camera and a very good lens like the 24-70 or a camera thats 'better' and a average lens, Id get the D700 but everyone has different priorities which is fair enough.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. Unless you need the extra resolution go with the D700.
 
Pookeyhead said:
D800 AF issue resolved. You will not buy a new D800 now that has it unless it's been sat on a shelf for months.

Sensors get dirty... then you clean them... that's why there's a setting in the menu to clean the sensor.

Why is me suggesting the D600 ignoring the OP's requirements?? As I see it, it's either the D600 or the D800.
Click to expand...

What if he's buying used?

Ha ha ha, setting in the menu to clean the sensor! Is that going to do a full wet clean to an oily or dusty sensor after only 500+ shots?!

Because you are having a go at others for ignoring the OPs initial post/requirements but nowhere does it state that he's considering the D600 in that post.
 
twist said:
What if he's buying used?

Ha ha ha, setting in the menu to clean the sensor! Is that going to do a full wet clean to an oily or dusty sensor after only 500+ shots?!

Because you are having a go at others for ignoring the OPs initial post/requirements but nowhere does it state that he's considering the D600 in that post.
Click to expand...

That did concern me to be honest about buying a used D800. There seem to be quite a few sitting around at various places and I assume the focus issue is probably the reason why. The concern is there's no way of knowing until you have it.
 
the_local_jacko said:
I mainly shoot portraits and rarely anything else except breaks away etc. It's usually all natural light and in a range of lighting conditions but I also have recently acquired a home studio set up in quite a compact space (9x12ft) and I primarily shoot children (my son usually) and the thinking behind a 24-70 is that children rarely stay still so it gives me some flexibility. The 50mm prime is a sharp lens and I would have no issues shooting with this on a D800 as has been suggested above apart from the fact is be running all over the place to keep up with my son.
Click to expand...

If your primary goal is taking pictures of children indoors, 24-70/2.8 might be a good choice. Although outdoors I would rather want something like 70-200/2.8 and a bit of distance.

While it is for sure possible to take great portraits with 24-70/2.8 it wouldn't be my first choice for full head style of portaits. Especially if you eventually plan to switch to FX. These just look better with longer lens (at least 85mm) if your home studio allows that. The reason is that the distance required to fill a frame with a human head with 85mm lens and longer is likely to give you better perspective. Flatter perspective is more forgiving to imperfections of human face. Also the DOF isolation is easier to achieve with longer lens. 24-70/2.8 is good for full body type of portaits when you want to put your subject to a scene. The best classic portraits I've seen were taken by 85mm or more.
 
Yes there is - visit the shops! Or get them to take a shot and e-mail you the original file - a JPEG will do, even a small one suitable for e-mailing. A reputable shop should be happy to do this to make a significant sale.
 
I was thinking of getting a D800 but ended up with a D600 and I'm very happy with it , for me I don't think the better specs of the D800 were worth the extra money and I haven't found I have been limited so far
 
twist said:
Ha ha ha, setting in the menu to clean the sensor! Is that going to do a full wet clean to an oily or dusty sensor after only 500+ shots?!
Click to expand...

My point was, it's there so you CAN do a wet clean of the sensor.. because sooner or later... ALL sensors will need cleaning. It's routine maintenance. Dirt on your sensor is just something you'll have to deal with, with all cameras. What's the big deal.. just clean it! I never understand this whole dirt on the sensor thing, and people sending their cameras away to be cleaned.. just buy some sensor wipes and clean it.. it takes 30 seconds!
 
Pookeyhead said:
D700 owners just need to stop getting defensive when someone suggests it's a little long in the tooth now. The D700 is just not the camera the OP needs, and recommending one just because you own one (which I've no idea if you do or not... but I'm willing to bet that you do) is not really wise IMO.
Click to expand...

Not wishing to cause an argument here but you are guilty of doing exactly the same thing by recommending the equipment you use and getting defensive when someone disagree's throughout the equipment forum for some time.

You have been advising the D800 to all and sundry for many months now and now also the D600, which I believe you have mentioned you have just purchased.

It's only natural I would guess to recommend the equipment you use yourself.

To the o.p whatever option you choose I am sure you will be delighted with it. The D600, D700 and D800 are all excellent camera bodies and I am sure which ever option you choose you will be pleased with the results.

One thing to bear in mind and that has already been mentioned is how bodies can and will fall in price, were as glass will hold it's value quite well. Only you will know what is more important to you. I have a Nikon 24-70 and it's great in terms of flexability around the house taking pics of the kids etc. For me a zoom is a must to capture these moments and I don't think I could settle for a D800 and a fifty although you may well be different.

Personally I don't like the D600, the spread of the a.f points and the consumer type body would be a real issue for me after being used to the D700, you however again may well be different. Coming from a D90 this may not be an issue. If you have the budget for one of these and still have the cash for a 24-70 this may be your best option.

I can only go from my own experience and I have never had an issue with the resolution of my D700, yes both the D600 and D800 are better in terms of resolution. For me at the price you can buy a D700 at now it's an absolute bargain. I would not be too concerned about buying used as long as you do your research on what you are buying.

From what you have said you want to shoot a D700 and a 24-70 seems like a fairly decent option. You could pick up a really good used example of the 24-70 for less than £900. A really good nick D700 for around £900 and still have cash left over for compact flash cards etc. all for the same cost as a D800. The D800 will fall in price again and will you can always upgrade to one later on down the line.

From what you said you want to use your set up for. A d700 plus 24-70 seems a fair bit more flexible than a d800/d600 and a fifty.
 
Soda Farl said:
Not wishing to cause an argument here but you are guilty of doing exactly the same thing by recommending the equipment you use and getting defensive when someone disagree's throughout the equipment forum for some time.
Click to expand...


I recommended a D600. I do not own a D600.
 
No it hasn't, I've asked for a refund so I can get ons e from somewhere else.

I've never so much as used a D600 beyond a 5 minute play. It just makes sense to have that as a second body because I have no more DX lenses. If I was evangelical over stuff I owned, I'd be urging him to get a D800. In this case, on his budget, I just feel the D600 will do what he wants, within his budget, and possibly allow, with a little saving a 24-70.

If you feel a 12MP 6 year old camera is better for someone who craves image quality over everything else, then fine.. I disagree.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it hasn't, I've asked for a refund so I can get ons e from somewhere else.

I've never so much as used a D600 beyond a 5 minute play. It just makes sense to have that as a second body because I have no more DX lenses. If I was evangelical over stuff I owned, I'd be urging him to get a D800. In this case, on his budget, I just feel the D600 will do what he wants, within his budget, and possibly allow, with a little saving a 24-70.

If you feel a 12MP 6 year old camera is better for someone who craves image quality over everything else, then fine.. I disagree.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read my post at all?

Or were you too busy preparing your pompous, as is often the case response?

I said in my post that the best option would be a D600 and a 24-70. :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
And here we go againnnnn.... David I think you have given sound advice, I am a D700 owner and to be honest the difference in the 700 and 800 is night and day, like you say technology moves on. In fact buying a D700 after using a 5d mk2 for so long left an awful sour taste in my mouth from day 1, so much so I had considered going canon again. The D800 was the answer for me
 
Apologies... no idea why I'm getting you mixed with mpe.... but no, I never read past your bold type... as after that you address it to the OP.

It's natural to recommend what you own if it's appropriate, yes, particularly if you are pleased with it. If it's not though, it's just being a fanboy. I don't feel it's appropriate to recommend a 12MP camera to someone who lists image quality being a primary concern. Let's be honest... it just isn't.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Apologies... no idea why I'm getting you mixed with mpe.... but no, I never read past your bold type... as after that you address it to the OP.

It's natural to recommend what you own if it's appropriate, yes, particularly if you are pleased with it. If it's not though, it's just being a fanboy. I don't feel it's appropriate to recommend a 12MP camera to someone who lists image quality being a primary concern. Let's be honest... it just isn't.
Click to expand...

Amen! +1 from me buddy
 
Pookeyhead said:
Apologies... no idea why I'm getting you mixed with mpe.... but no, I never read past your bold type... as after that you address it to the OP.

It's natural to recommend what you own if it's appropriate, yes, particularly if you are pleased with it. If it's not though, it's just being a fanboy. I don't feel it's appropriate to recommend a 12MP camera to someone who lists image quality being a primary concern. Let's be honest... it just isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent which is why I suggested a D600 and a 24-70.

However if it comes down to a choice, due to budget of a D600/D800 and a fifty or a D700 and a 24-70, a D700 and a 24-70 in my opinion is a more flexible option for what the o.p wants to shoot. Not much sense having high resolution images if the framing etc. is poor due to the inflexability of a limited focal range. Having 2 mad kids myself there is no way I could get away with just a fifty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top