D700 + D300 a perfect pair?

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR' started by jklofft, Jul 25, 2008.

  1. I just picked-up my new D700 and I can’t wait to get home from work and give it a try. I’m lovin’ the idea of shooting the D700 and D300 together. Feels like the best of both worlds. Here are a few couple of combinations (I’m sure there are others that I haven’t consider yet)

    Events - D700 w/24-70 + D300 w/85 f/1.4
    Candid Portraits - D700 w/85 f/1.4 + D300 w/70-200VR
    Travel - D700 w/70-200 + D300 w/14-24

    I’m also really hoping the rumors about new primes is true. A lens like the 24 f/1.4 would be both a 24 f/1.4 and a 35 f/1.4 how sweet is that!
  2. TimK


    Apr 17, 2006
    Hong Kong, China
    Why would you want to put a tele on a FF body and a zoom on a DX?

    I would be travelling with D700 + 17-35 and D300 + 500/4 VR.
  3. pointa-b-c


    Mar 21, 2007
    Los Angeles
    Great lens choices for events and portraits, but for travel, shouldn't you use D700 w/ 14-24 and D300 w/ 70-200 instead? :confused:
  4. IMO, the ideal travel FLs are 17-35 or 20-35 and an 80-200 or 70-200. Using the 14-24 on the D300 eliminates the need to purchase a 17-35 as the 14-24 becomes a 20-36.
  5. This will be my combo next year. D300 for my bird shots and the D700 for portraits.
  6. Eye Spy

    Eye Spy Guest

    "D700 + D300 a perfect pair? ".....First time I've heard that term refering to cameras!:wink:
  7. Kadath


    Nov 21, 2007
    --Travel - D700 w/70-200 + D300 w/14-24

    As Mr. Wonka would say "Scratch that, reverse it"
  8. vinman


    Nov 15, 2006
    Upstate SC
    Ahh, so you have heard it before, then?
  9. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    how bout 2 d700's ? DUH! lol
  10. Pete


    Jun 10, 2006
    Denver, CO
    I am keeping my D300 also. It is great on my 300 2.8 VR and I can use the D700 for non tele lenses. Can't wait for the next air show...
  11. Triggaaar


    Jun 15, 2008
    I get where you're coming from Jeff. If you reversed the lenses, you'd have a (in 35mm language) huge 24 - 105mm gap. As it is, you get 21-36 & 70-200, which will cover most needs without having to change lens. And if you need to go ultra wide or ultra long, you can change lens.

    But it's not exactly a light travel option :smile:
    While I'd rather travel with an slr than a compact, I'd be happy with the D300 and 18-200vr. That's low standards for you :smile:
  12. PWPhoto


    Jul 21, 2006
    San Diego
    agreed ;)
  13. Actually the beauty is by carrying the two bodies and those two lenses you've essentially got 14-300mm covered all at f/2.8
  14. Perhaps, but combining with FX makes it like you've got more than one set of lenses

    14-24 or 20-30
    85 f/1.4 or 135 f/1.4
    70-200VR or 105-300VR
  15. I depends on the trip. To someplace really special, take the big boys. For more modest locations the D300 + 18-200. I actually own and love that combination. I call it either my P&S set-up or my Disney World set-up.
  16. I keep coming back to this thought process- the D300 & D700 will compliment each other so nicely.
  17. Triggaaar


    Jun 15, 2008
    Yes indeed. If you're not a pro who needs 2 bodies just to save time switching (2 D700s sound good for a wedding photographer), the D300 and D700 do seem like a great money saving pair :biggrin:
  18. Tom Larsen

    Tom Larsen

    Jan 18, 2008
    I have the D300 and my widest lens, after I sold the D80 with the 18-200 attached, is my 24-70, the secondary lens is the 70-300 VR which I often find too long on the short end. To go wide I could buy the 14-24 to complement the 24-70, or for about $1300 more, I can buy the D700 and get wide enough for most of my needs with the 24-70 I already have, and the 70-300 would become much more useful as a walkaround lens because 70 would be just that, not 105. In addition the high ISO ability of the D700 would help in all the situations where I can't use a flash, because of reflective surfaces, or not being allowed. I think the two make a nice combo and I would keep the D300 for reach.