1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

D300 or D700

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by inukshuk, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. I want to get one of these two but if I go for the D700, then which of my lens wouldn't work for full frame. Which ones are DX only? I'm not to sure.
  2. I just checked and WOW. I'd have to get rid of too many lens for the D700 "18-50 f/2.8, 30mm f/1.4, 12-24mm f/4, 18-200VR. Wiser to just go for the D300. Oh well would have been nice.
  3. The D300 isn't bad at all. Unless you really need ultra wide angle and high ISO, the D300 is a great camera.
  4. My reason for wanting to upgrade would be for basketball and ice hockey with poor lighting and no flash.
  5. joealcantar


    Oct 5, 2008
    Second that. Also keep in mind that you can still use your DX lenses on the D700, less MP but no one ever dogged the D2h @4MP.
  6. In that case, if you can manage to keep both, I would keep the D200 and get a D700. You can still use the D700 in 5mp DX mode. I ended up selling my DX lenses and went with all FX lenses.
  7. I wouldn't mind keeping the D200 as back up but can't really afford to do that and some of my DX lens I like "12-24 f/4, 30mm f/1.4, 18-200VR" which I would want to use at the max pixel range.
  8. If you're looking for low-light photography, there is simply no comparison between the D300 and D3/D700's capabilities. The good news for you, is the DX lenses uyou list are fairly easy to sell here on the Cafe. But you would lose some money in the replacement for FX.
  9. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    Then you'd be better served by the D700.
  10. That is not so clear-cut...

    The OP has neither the 85/1.4 nor the 200/2 VR in his current lineup. It may be better to invest the $1100 price difference between a D300 and D700 in better low-light glass!


  11. lol...or instead of the 85/1.4 and 200/2, he could buy a 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.8, and buy a second D700? :biggrin:
  12. I already have the 70-200 and have thought about the 85/1.8. Most of my shots are on the side, so maybe the 85/1.8 would be to much??
    I'm going to try my 28-80 f/2.8 with the flash straight up at the ceiling and see how that goes. Still want better ISO, but have to calculate all the $$$ options in the upgrade.
    Plus there's the new Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AFS coming out.
  13. The D300 will give you about 1 stop better high ISO performance than your D200. The D700 adds another 1-2 stops to that, but you will need to upgrade your existing lenses in addition to the $1100 difference between D300 & D700.

    I would think long and hard about getting the D300 and some fast primes - 85/1.4, 50/1.4, maybe the 105/2 - before committing to the D700.

    But that's just me...


  14. The 28-80 (good copies, anyway) is outstanding in DX and FX. I use mine on the D200 and D700. I have to say, I pretty much prefer EVERYTHING on the D700, though.

    For what you're shooting, reach would be secondary to ISO performance, and you already have some good fast glass. I'd be tempted to recommend the 700 for ISO and unload some of the dx lenses - or keep them and use the crop mode.
  15. If I could find a replacement for the 12-24 f/4 "which I love big time" I might do the jump to the D700. I also checked to see if there was a replacement for the 18-200, but no luck. Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron's versions are all DX. That sucks.
  16. mattsteg


    Aug 10, 2007
    Sigma had a 15-30 FX and now has a 12-24 FX. There are plenty of 28-300 lenses out there that would be 18-200 "replacements". Tamron recently launched a "VC" one with their stabilization.

    No experience with any of them, just listing a few lenses that I know exist.
  17. The 17-35 2.8 on FX matches the 12-24 DX quite closely.
    I have them both and while I shoot mostly film, I find the 17-35 on my D200 more often than the 12-24.
    They're both two of my favourites.
  18. For the 18-200 VR, your direct replacement would be the Tamron 28-300 VC.

    And you don't need to replace the 12-24 immediately. It works on the FX body in the 18-24mm range, according to folks like Thom Hogan:


  19. jonh68


    Sep 21, 2008
    If low light is the reason, get a D700. I have both and I would choose to lose the D300 over the D700 if I were forced to do so, regardless of what lens I had.

    I have used my 18-200 VR for grins and giggles. Here is a shot straight out of the camera with the combo at ISO 6400. It is not a substitute for a fast lens, but the D700 will add usefulness to slow lenses. When you get better glass, it will sing on the D700.

    If money is a concern, I would get the D90 over the D300 and buy some better glass to go with it. The reviews I have read show the D90 is a little better at ISO performance.

    For a walkabout lens, you may want to consider the nikon 28-200 G. It can be found for very cheap used and has good IQ performance for cheap plastic.

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2008
  20. You could look for a used Nikkor 20-35/2.8. One of Nikon's truly great lenses. You can get them for reasonable money, but they are in demand, so grab one quick if you find it...

    As far as the 18-200, really, you'll be covered in focal length, just with more lenses. This is the price you pay for stepping up your game to better, faster glass. The quality you'll pick up will take the sting out of the loss of convenience. Besides, you will still be able to use the lens, just at reduced resolution...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.