Nikon advice required please.

[Robbie A]

I am investigating changing over to Nikon. My work is mainly studio, both people and product, occasional conference with groups of people, speakers etc, (occasional wedding) and then avian with some wildlife. Also some landscape but very limited, more nightscapes..

I am thinking of investing in the following:

Bodies
D3S - Studio
D300S - Avian (crop sensor for extra reach?)

Glass
Primes
50 F1.4
105 macro F2.8
300 F2.8 with 1.4 and 1.7 TC's or 500 F4

Zooms
24-70 F2.8
70-200 F2.8

Will need a general lens as well - something like a 18-105 for a walk around lens.

What are your thoughts, suggestions or experience on my proposal.

Please, this is not a brand war nor reason for brand bashing. I have decided on Nikon for my own personal reasons. I would however welcome comments from anyone about the FL's or the system.

[Vivaldo Damilano]

Hi Robbie I would go for the D3S and the new 70-200 VRII. The 500VR for reach with converters. The 24-70 F2.8 is also a must. I would leave out the D3OO as you will want to use the D3s all the time Good luck choosing

[EtienneB]

Hi Robbie,

Bodies:

Depending on how you approach your studio work the obvious choice would be the D3X (base ISO 100) instead of the D3S (base ISO 200), it does come at a premium though but it is also a stock shooter's dream (if you're into that sort of thing). The down side is that your technique has to be spot on otherwise the additional pixels will only exaggerate any problems you have. Obviously the D3s also rules the Nikon roost when it comes to low light so if you are going to be doing weddings or events then the additional ISO performance there will be more of an advantage than the MP on the X. Some guys use Genuine Fractals to resample to get the extra size.

The D300s should be fine for BIF I think. I'm not a BIF person so I'm sure others will advise you there.

Primes:

The 50 f1.4 is very sharp and quite a nice lens all round. The G is somewhat better than the D in IQ but the down side is that the AF speed is a tad slow (not unusable, just a bit slower). The upside of the G over the D is that the focus ring does not rotate in your hand if you are shooting in AF mode. I've read good things about the bigger and more expensive Sigma version but I haven't used it myself so I can't say how it compares. There's a low light sepia shot of a bride in my gallery taken with this lens.

The 105 Macro is a very capable lens, however if you're not much into the Macro thing and plan on using this as a portrait lens then I will do one of two things, wait a couple of months to see if the new 24/35/85 f1.4 AFS lenses arrive, rumours have it in Jan/Feb 2010 (also possibly a 135 F2) and then go for the new 85 1.4 or 135 f2. Alternatively pick up a good second hand 85 f1.4D (the focus ring does not rotate in your hand like the 50mm f1.4D). It is an absolute stunner of a lens and you won't be sorry.

The longer primes are out of my sphere of reference again so I can't help you there. I do have a 1.7TCII and it is usable on the 70-200 VRII. However the 2x TCIII will also be available shortly and that might be a better option on the 300.

Zooms:

The 24-70 f2.8 is very sharp and the AF is snappy. Its a bit on the heavy side but worth every gram in terms of IQ.

The 70-200 f2.8 VRII is a stunner although you lose a bit on the long end if you use the minimum focus distance (take two steps closer and it becomes a non-issue). It really is everything they say it is. I had the previous version and now the new one and the new one is def the better of the two, particularly on full frame. I use it as my "walk around", as intimidating as it seems .

General Comments:
Overall the system is quite complete and everything is well thought out (unless you're looking for short focal f4 primes and zooms which Nikon are not big on). Weather sealing is good on all the bodies and G lenses I've mentioned. Ergonomics is something very subjective. I have quite large hands and I've found that the D3 sits very well in my hands when shooting either landscape or portrait. The AF buttons are also large and well placed and I've used the camera with gloves without a problem or loss of "feel". I can't think that this would be any worse on a D3s or X. Custom functions are plentiful and you can really go to town if you want to customise the camera to fit your shooting style.

In terms of timeline, I suspect the D4/D400 replacements should start seeing the light towards the end of next year with the D700 replacement some time before then.

Good luck with your purchase and I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

[Robin Hester]

all the equipment u listed is good, but i would get a 200-400 f4 instead of 300 2.8

[Robbie A]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Ettienne, thank your for your detailed comments. They are very informative and I will certainky take them too heart. I too have larger hands and have handled both the bodies that I mentioned and they seem pretty comfortable. The 70-200 does make a good walkabout lens but I prefer something more on the wide side for some informal shots so the 70 will be a tad long for my style. I think I might also wait for the 85 F1.4 as suggested by yourself.. the extra stop makes the focus that tad sharper and the lens should be super sharp for the macro as well as portrait functions.

[Harmonica777]

If you want to have a cheaper version with the same quality, use Canon for instance. Their lenses and bodies in comparison to NIkon are much cheaper. If I have to go over to Nikon from a Canon EOS 50D to Nikon D300s with a 17-40 F4 L lens and a 70-200 F2.8 IS and the top range flash, I will have to work for ever for the bank and not even eat everyday.
I started with Richo KR 10x in 1990s and never regret when my friend bought me the Canon EOS 600. It was the equivalent for the Nikon F2 or F7 and still i beat other people on many aspects.
The another reason for choosing Canon is that I just like the anatomical grip it has on my hands. The Nikon grip for instance is too narrow around and I won't last very ong with it with heavy lenses.

I have a favorite saying on cameras:

Are you taking amateur photos with a Pro body or are you talking Pro photos with a amateur body?

THE CHOICE IS YOURS!

[kay]

Some people just can't read, can they? Though it would be interesting to hear Robbie's thoughts on why Nikon over Sony and Canon.

Looks like a solid lineup! Using the D300s for birds/wildlife is definitely a good idea - instant 1.5x gain in focal length. If you're only going to use the D3s in the studio, why not save yourself some money and get a D700 instead? It's not likely you're going to *need* ISO 6400 in the studio... Even for weddings the D700 is more than enough. The major advantage of the D3s body is that it's more comfortable - especially with a 24-70/2.8 and SB-900 mounted (you can add a grip to the D700 but it's just not the same).

The 85/1.4D seems like a great portrait lens too, as noted. The 105/2.8 can also double as a studio portrait lens. And if you're into exotic teles, the 400/2.8 is getting rave reviews so probably also worth considering.

As a start the 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 are probably going to cover all you need.

[craniac]

Some people just can't read, can they?

Post #6 had me past breaking point for people on forums answering with total disregard for what the OP asked so I was going to report it with the reason

The response given totally ignores a key point of the OP's post. Did the respondent even read it?

but then I saw the report form says "This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." so I cancelled the report.

Nothing personal Harmonica777 but making posts like this is probably not the best way to make yourself welcome at ODP.

[EtienneB]

85 F1.4 as suggested by yourself.. the extra stop makes the focus that tad sharper and the lens should be super sharp for the macro as well as portrait functions.

Just note that the 85 f1.4 is not a Macro lens, it is a straight forward "shoot me wide open and enjoy the bokeh results" prime. Minimum focus distance on the current version is 85cm but you can use it with extension tubes like the Kenkos if you really want to use it for macro work.

There is a new DX (crop) 85mm f3.5 Macro that apparently is VERY sharp through all the stops and which should work a treat on the D300s, but the lens I was talking about is the FF 85 which is not a Macro.

[Robbie A]

Just note that the 85 f1.4 is not a Macro lens, it is a straight forward "shoot me wide open and enjoy the bokeh results" prime.

Thanks Etienne.. I realised this only this morning..

[EtienneB]

Found some examples for you:
http://japanorama.co.uk/2009/02/17/u...-a-macro-lens/

and examples of the oof areas:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/...7594261826092/

[Robbie A]

Found some examples for you:
http://japanorama.co.uk/2009/02/17/u...-a-macro-lens/

and examples of the oof areas:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/...7594261826092/

Thank you for the links. seems like an incredible lens to have in ones bag..

[Piet Venter]

Robbie, I have no experience of studio work so can't imagine what is required there. However, some comments based on my experience for what they're worth:

• I have been using a D3 and a D300 mostly for avian, nature, landscape and a bit of macro. The 1,5X crop factor of the D300 is handy, but the ergonomics and image quality are not comparable to the D3. I need to spend more time in PP as a result. Not that the D300 is bad - au contraire! I would guess that the same will be true of the D3s and D300s combo. However, your idea is still a good approach and matches my thinking some time ago.
• I do not have big hands but I prefer the D3's ergonomics to any other camera body I have ever handled.
• The 24/70mm lens is a gem. You won't go wrong buying it.
• Do not buy the 105mm Micro unless you want to do macro. It is a great lens and I use mine often, but I really don't like using it for the very little portrait photography I do (shows every dimple, pimple, blemish, etc in all its glory). If, however, you want to use it for macro - by all means go ahead. It is great even when combined with a 1,4X TC or extension tubes.
• I don't know the 85 mm f1.4 but I believe it is great. I would advise against buying any DX lens if you intend buying a FX Nikon even if you have a DX body in your line up.
• The 300mm f2.8 is great even with 1,4X and 1,7X TC's. It's too early to comment on the new 2,0X TC.
• The dilemma one faces is weight vs maneuverability - I have a 200/400m VR which is a fantastic lens, but lugging it around is a schlep. I have considered adding a 600mm f4 VR (avian always needs a tad more length than you have in your arsenal ) but the extra mass has kept me from taking the plunge. IMO 300mm is a bit short for avian (although there are many superb examples of avian images taken with 300mm lenses!); however it is superior for handheld shots and panning. The superb 400mm f.8 VR is also an interesting alternative that I have considered but discarded as it weighs almost as much as a 600mm f4. I suppose it depends on your own physique and approach to avian - carry a heavy lens or leopard crawl the last n+1 meters.
• I have the older version 70/200mm VR (which somehow has suddenly become rubbish in certain people's eyes although I am still very satisfied with mine) and use it as a walkaround lens. It is not all that heavy. When I visit my daughters and their families abroad, I pack my D300, 105mm Micro, 24/70mm, 70/200mm, 1,7X TC ad SB 800 flash - this allows me to take photos of our grandchildren, landscape, cityscapes, nature, macro and a bit of avian. For all other holidays/travels I pack everything photographic that I own, use only half of it and make a resolution never to be so silly again.
• Personally I would not buy a non-pro lens for no more serious reason than that I like the large apertures and the solid feel of the pro-range of Nikkors.

If I had to replace all my gear today and funding wasn't too much of an issue, I would buy

• 2X D3s bodies or a D3s plus a D300s;
• 24/70mm f2.8
• 50mm f1.4
• 105mm f2.8 Micro
• 200mm f2
• 400mm f2.8
• 1,4X TC
• 1,7X TC
• SB 900 flash

I would be interested to learn what you eventually decide. I am not interested in knowing your reason for changing to Nikon; I do know that you won't be disappointed.

[elsahoffmann]

Do it Robbie

[Piet Venter]

Something I forgot to mention: When I visit a game park, I use my 70/200mm lens on the D300 and the 200/400mm lens (often with 1,4X TC) on my D3. This is an awesome combo which allowed me a week's shooting in KTP without ever having to change lenses and risk getting dust on the sensors. You may want to keep this in mind when you make your decision.

I agree with Elsa - just do it. In my experience (53 years of photography) I have never had the perfect set of lenses. But then I have always suffered from incurable lensitis.

[kobuspotgieter]

When I visit a game park, I use my 70/200mm lens on the D300 and the 200/400mm lens (often with 1,4X TC) on my D3.

That is to my mind the problem having a D300 and D3. The D3 is so good that you always want to use the "better" lens with it. What would make more sense is to put the 200/400 on D300 to have "300-600 f4" and 70/200 on D3, maybe with converter to have 100-280 f4 ?

I prefer my D300 for macro work. I often severely crop small insects and the 12mp FX sensor will not allow for that. For everthing else the D3 is just better.

If birding is your thing, nothing comes close to a 600 I am afraid (on FX that is). I also use my 600 succesfully for sport on the D3. To compliment the D3/600 combo I use a 200 f2.0 (sometimes with 1.4tc) on D300 to get to "300mm f2" or "420mm f2.8". The 200 f2 is an amazing lens and the D300/200F2 combo focus as fast as the D3/600 combo. On all the other lenses I have, my D300 is a tad slower than my D3.

For people/weddings etc. I use a 135 f2 on D3 and 24-70 on D300. And if I predict that a few shots that will require the 24-70 will follow, I will change lenses for the 24-70 to be on the D3.

If it were not for the macro factor (unfortunately I like to get very close and almost always use a stack of extension tubes on a dedicated macro lens to get even closer) I would have traded the D300 for a D700 long ago.

To Robbie: For your requirements and from what I see in your gallery (on the condition that you are not into small bugs), a D3/D700 combo will be my choice. With the following lenses:

600mm f4
70-200 vr II
24-70 2.8
105 MACRO (or look at Sigma 150 or 180 macro lenses)

Don't think that you need a 50mm. The 24-70 is really good at 50mm.

There a few D3's in the classifieds at very good prices. Maybe not a bad option in order to finance the 600.

[Piet Venter]

What would make more sense is to put the 200/400 on D300 to have "300-600 f4" and 70/200 on D3, maybe with converter to have 100-280 f4 ?

Initially I used the 70/200 on the D3 (animals) and the 200/400 on the D300 (birds) when visiting game parks as per Kobus's post and for the same reason. However, I found that my overall keeper rate is better - and my PP less - when I use the 70/200 on the D300 and the 200/400 on my D3. My current thinking is to replace the D300 with a secondhand D3 or a new D3s.

A 600mm f4 VR II is obviously the ultimate and I wuld buy one tomorrow if it was not for the weight.

[Bushiess]

A 600mm f4 VR II is obviously the ultimate and I wuld buy one tomorrow if it was not for the weight.

I've been working out, can handle the weight but the wallet is a bit light

[Texasbelle]

Oh yes, finding ways to carry a heavy lens is easier than finding ways to pay for it

[Robbie A]

Thank you everyone for your most helpfull advice.. I will defnitely go with the D3 and D300, 10-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105 macro (or maybe 135)... and then... this I still have to decide.. will def either be the 500 or 600.. need to visit Hedrus and then make a final decision. The 200-400 is a great lens but I find a little short for my style..

Kobus, thank you for your most invaluable advice.. focussing speed is particularily important and your hands on certainly gives me a heads up..