Nikon kit - what should I get?

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
As some of you might be aware, I've recently landed my dream job as head of photography at my publishing company. I already use my D200, Siggy 70-200mm, Nikon 12-24mm and 18-70mm but the boss has said to draw up a list of new kit that I feel I could do with.

I love my D200 but I'll be pushing for a second body, preferably a D300 with grip (although I'll test the waters with a D3 :)) and I love my recently aquired 12-24mm, but I need a longer lens plus a macro.

I was thinking about a 80-400mm VR but have heard it's good but not brilliant; a good walkabout zoom but with slow AF and mediocre build quality. The other option is a prime 300mm NAF f/4 and then get a teleconverter for really long stuff. That's about the same as the 80-400mm price-wise (£1,100). Any thoughts?

Regarding the macro lens, I'm thinking the Nikon 60mm 'G' because of the size, although the Tamron 90mm looks good for the money. The Nikon 60mm looks better for space though and it's internal focus, which I prefer to keep dust (etc) out.

What d'ya reckon peeps?...
 
What are you taking photo's of?

My dream setup, with somebody else's money is probably.

D700
17-35 f/2.8
50 f/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 VR
300 f/2.8 VR
1.4 TC
2x TC.

Yep, I'd be happy with that lot.
 
Personally, I don't fancy the sound of either choices there, although the 80-400 would probably be the lesser of two evils -what are you planning to shoot with the long lens?
 
I shoot for angling mags so do everything from macro work of hooks in the studio, right through to long lens stuff from the far bank of rivers etc - pretty much every focal length you can think of. Long lens work is usually done on a tripod and the fastest-moving subject I shoot is someone casting.

I'm not talking dream set-up – there will be a couple of £1,000 maximum to play with, good in the middle of a recession – and I'm not looking to go full frame because of the cost implications at the long end of things. Can't afford to spend £3000+ on a fixed f/2.8 prime long lens, hence the need for a zoom or a cheaper f/4 fixed 300mm.

What do you reckon then for macro - Tamron 90mm? Siggy 105mm?

This is all actually the cheapest option because the rest of the company is Canon-based but it's all aging 30D and 20D bodies, decent 17-40mm lenses and that's about it, hence why I'm sticking with Nikon.
 
Do the lenses need to be new? I assume you'll need vat receipts etc, so a used 120-300 or 300 prime Sigma from a dealer might be a better choice at around £1000-£1200 than a new Nikon 300 f/4 and a tc...
 
Also, wasn't there a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 up for sale here a short while ago? That, with a TC, is a very tempting combination :shrug:
 
Specialman - I also shoot for angling titles, on the game side of things.

I would suggest you go for a 70-200 with a 1.7x converter. The D700 would be a good choice of body too, better than the DX versions - I swapped from D2x to D3 and will never need anything better, it is more than adequate for A2 posters and advertising work.

Lenses:
you already have a 12-24 (which will work fine on the D700 and it will automatically detect that it is a DX lens and switch to DX crop) so that is your wides taken care of.
24-70 would cover most standard requirements (which is what the 3 lens system was designed for: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.)

Macro - go for the older 60mm Nikor. At around £260 it is stunning - just an af version of the old 60mm = 260 lines per mm resolution. More than any magazine could ever print. Need closer? Extension tube(s) retains TTL metering, so takes out all your maths problems of calculating exposure fall off and with TTL compatability on the flash too, even through the ext tubes.

The choices suggested also take into consideration longevity and the need to lug the stuff to the water. Keep it simple - also if you go fo rall Nikon lenses, the colour balanace across your lenses remains the same....go for different makers and you'll have different colour balance from the one shoot. I have all Nikkor lenses and have done for some years, worth it in the long run and versatile.
 
Wow you are a very lucky man, that would be more than a dream job!
 
Lensflare, that's an interesting take on the conundrum.

I like my Siggy 70-200mm (I like the fast aperture and size) but I am thinking the Nikon version with a TC, especially as I also get the benefit of VR thrown in. Having a 300mm+ f/4 lens with a zoom would be quite nice.

The 12-24 is a peach of a lens and was the reason I was thinking DX*–*I forgot that the new FX bodies have the ability to use DX and crop accordingly. Would like to see some results of this to see just if there's any difference in IQ. I take it that on something like a D700 the crop factor is the same as my D200 (1.5x) so the 12mm end is effectively 18mm?

I don't do that much macro ATM but I expect on our game title and our carp titles I'll be doing a fair whack when it comes to knots, fly dressings etc. On our works Canon gear we have the 100mm f/2.8, which is lovely –*how does the Nikon 60mm compare?

24-70mm sounds like a good idea, especially on an FX body. Very pricey though –*I have to do the big sell to the boss next week – so what are opnions on the 24-85mm f/2.8-4? Yes, it's an older lens but by all accounts, a great performer, although not up to the standard of the f/2.8 24-70mm.

Good point about the colour balance. My Siggy is a lot different to my Nikons inthis respect. it's not a hassle to correct in PS afterwards but it would be a slight time saver in the long run.

For a 70-200mm VR, 60mm macro, 24-70mm and a D700 wihth a grip that's going on for at least £4800, a lot of money by anyone's standards. Change the D700 to a D300 with grip and that's £4200. Change to a D3 and we're talking well ver £5000, nearly £6000!!!

Going to have to put over a very, very good case for splashing the cash. Image quality is key and they know that, but that still doens't magic money out of nowhere*–*fingers crossed :)
 
If work are offering to pay then they'll be getting 15% VAT back on the prices we see and will be able to get 20% further off in terms of Tax savings from the Annual Investment allowance open to businesses. Plus if they compare the cost of comissioning professional photos each time the cost of kit for an inhouse shooter suddenly appears quite small.

On this basis identify what you actually need and why you need it and I'm sure you will find a nice gold box on your desk :).

Personally I would suggest sticking to Nikon lenses and as a minimum 24-70 (even on a DX body it is great - any wider and distortion is a big problem) and 70-200VR. If you will be doing lots of macro then consider the 105mm VR Macro, I love this lens :love:. If you need anything longer then consider hiring it for a week.

Body wise I think it all depends on the photos you'll be taking. If you are going to need the extra lens length and shooting outside in daylight then I'd consider the DX format D300 as you won't need the ISO performance of the D700. With the D300 the 1.5 crop helps "extend" the lenses plus if you had to crop the D700 image to get the same image you would get more pixels per fish with the D300 image, plus you won't be getting any IQ degridation from a teleconvertor.

I would also consider a SB900 flash to the kit too

Just spend my 2p wisely ;)
 
Have e-mailed proposal for 24-70mm f/2.8, SB900, 70-200mm VR, 60mm macro, 1.7x TC to accompany a D2, D700+grip or a D300+grip so will see what happens.

I think we'll most probably end up going for a D300 because it has good noise handling at high ISO, which is something we need for shooting at our indoor shows and trade visits. The D700 is a good prospect because of the dual-format sensor – can I select the DX size during use or does it only default to DX when a DX lens is attached?

The tax issue is one that I've pointed out – 20% off £6500 for the D3 outfit sees us spending 'only' £5200, so ha's a good saving, and I'm sure we could get further money off with the retailer.

The SB900 is essential so I can team it up with my SB800 and SB26 so I have a portable studio.

SimonTALM, out of your D700 and D300, which do you feel you get the most from? I've cited the D700 as having the better IQ and noise reduction (although the D300 isn't bad at all) but the crop factor on the D300 at the long end is very useful indeed. Noise is a key thing for us, because it seems to be exagerated in print, so the least possible is the key.
 
Yes you can manually select the DX crop, but there's no point IMO.
All it does is throw away the outer part of the picture, there may be something there you wanted to keep lol, and you can crop it later.

If you need high ISO capability, you need the D700 or D3, I know the D300 is good, but doesn't come close the the D700's performance.
I think Cannockwolf posted a D300 vs D700 noise comparison on here a while ago.
 
IMHO the gains for noise is too incremental on the DX line. Its just not a big enough upgrade for noise.

If you really want really good high ISO performance, you need to consider the D700, D3 or a Canon 5D or 5D MKII. A D300 won't solve whatever noise problems you think you have.
 
cyclone said:
Yes you can manually select the DX crop, but there's no point IMO.
All it does is throw away the outer part of the picture, there may be something there you wanted to keep lol, and you can crop it later.

If you need high ISO capability, you need the D700 or D3, I know the D300 is good, but doesn't come close the the D700's performance.
I think Cannockwolf posted a D300 vs D700 noise comparison on here a while ago.
Click to expand...

specialman - were you aware that the DX mode on the D700 takes the image down to 5mp from 12mp?

Here's cannockwolf's comparison thread.
 
sdb123 - Did you mean me???
If so, yes, I realise that the cropped area does not contain as many pixels as the full sensor area.
 
I have said this time and again......for the sharpest 70-200 you cant beat the tamron so long as you arent shootin things that travel over 400mph lol
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
I have said this time and again......for the sharpest 70-200 you cant beat the tamron so long as you arent shootin things that travel over 400mph lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, optically it might well be the best 70-200 out there, but the AF is a bad joke.

Best thing they can do is rip out the laughable cruddy motor, and just use in-body motors.
 
cyclone said:
sdb123 - Did you mean me???
If so, yes, I realise that the cropped area does not contain as many pixels as the full sensor area.
Click to expand...

No - I know that you know (sounds like a comedy scene!)...I quoted your post and added a little further information as I though it would be useful to specialman.

:)
 
puddleduck said:
Yeah, optically it might well be the best 70-200 out there, but the AF is a bad joke.

Best thing they can do is rip out the laughable cruddy motor, and just use in-body motors.
Click to expand...

Its only an option to look at as its so sharp but cheap (a new one is only about £700) which looks better than £1400 :thumbs:
 
Specialman - I see the D700 and D300 as two different tools for two purposes. I use the D700 for Weddings and Portraits when the light may be low and I can easily control my working distance. The D300 comes out when I need high fps rate DX factor (to get extra distance from my lenses) e.g. sports / wildlife etc.

I agree with PD that if you need the low noise performance at High ISO (IMO this means ISO800 and over) then the D700 is the better of the two. However, if you are shooting at low ISOs I don't think there is much difference between the two (although I've not done a comparison). So if find that you are shooting outside in good light or inside with controllable lighting e.g. flash (which from what you've said I think you will be most of the time, other than the trade show stuff) then you'll be using ISO200 when IMO there isn't much to be gained from getting the D700 over the D300.

Another 2p for you to spend - much more and you could get both :lol:
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Its only an option to look at as its so sharp but cheap (a new one is only about £700) which looks better than £1400 :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I paid £375 brand new for mine - it can't be £700 surely??

TBH even at that price, I couldn't get my head around the slow AF, although I was temtped to get another one, just for the optics. However I think a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (two touch) is generally a better choice - the AF speed is about 20 times faster, and sharpness wise the AF-D close to the 70-200 VR (which is no slouch :)
 
Bleedin' eck, there are too many things going on here!! :)

Thanks for the heads-up on the Tamron Dangermouse but it's the Nikon I want. I have a Siggy 70-200mm that's good but if work are paying for new gear, I'd rather go for the dedicated lens for the body. Plus, the VR function is quite appealing as a safety net of sorts :) I may have a Siggy 70-200mm for sale at some point soon...

SDB123, I was wondering what compromise there was going to be for the D700 to take DX. Thanks for clearing that up :)

The test that Cannockwolf did is very interesting indeed – the D700 looks streets ahead. I think my D200 is a great camera and I don't actually think it's that bad at high ISO. Obviously the D300 is better but judging by comments, but isn't that much better when you then look at what the next development (the D700) has to offer. Then you have the D3, which I doubt one bit will find its way to me because of the price. It would be a great body to have, because I can use my existing DX 12-24mm plus I effectively get more at the long end of the zooms.

The D700 certainly ticks all the boxes, although my 12-24mm might as well be stuck on my D200 instead of the D700 in DX crop mode. It'll give me better detail for print, which is good (and one thing the boss is keen on) and the high ISO capabilities are deffo brilliant.

I suppose that whatever kit they buy me I'll be happy because I'm not wearing my own gear out. It'll ultimately come down to budgets and what's available but I can see the £500 difference between a D700 and a D300 not being that much of an issue when faced with the big leap in IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top