Would you sell all this to get a D700?

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR' started by hotrod4x5, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. Currently I have a d300 and two D200's. I shoot weddings and portraits, but my real love is landscapes.

    I am seriously considering selling my D300, one D200, and my 17-55 to get a D700. I really like the D300, but I want full frame! I would keep one D200 as a backup.

    I have the 12-24, 17-35, 17-55, 24-120, 70-200, 80-400, a 24, 28, 50 and 300. My most used lenses at weddings are my 12-24 and 17-55.

    I realize that I will have a hole in my coverage, unless I rely on the 24-120, which isn't real sharp wide open.

    I might actually not need the 12-24 anymore either. So I might be able to get enough to get a used Beast.

    Any flaws in my logic? What would you do in my position?
     
  2. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    SELL! It's worth it! Get a D700 and the only lens you will ever need is the 50/1.8.
     
  3. Looking forward to some thoughtful replies.
     
  4. Rodney,
    I'd keep the D300 and sell the rest.
    After years of shooting DX I had forgotten what the 35mm format really was like. Now, with an FX body I've remembered why
    my 35 f/2 was one of my favorite lenses.
    But back to why I'd keep the D300. Every now and then you'll miss the reach DX gives and right now nothing gives
    that reach better than the D300. On FX, as you've no doubt considered, your 300 will be like a 200... kind of funny having
    to think that way after spending so much time getting used to the feel of lenses on DX isn't is?
    The D300 besides being a backup will be another tool in your box.

    I'd sell off the wide angle DX lenses and get the incredible 24-70. For 90% of you shooting this will be your 'go to' lens. If you
    feel the need for wider you've got the 17-35. 17mm on FF is WIDE. If you need wider than that at a wedding then they've got too many guests.:biggrin:
    With the 70-200 you really don't have a hole in coverage assuming you get the 24-70.

    Don
     
  5. Thanks Don. I am trying to do this without any cash out of pocket. You make an excellent point about the D300, I will do the math and see what I can come up with.
     
  6. Personally I'd sell the 12-24, 17-55 and both D200's and get a D700+24-70. you've got everything covered then from your current range. The 24-70 is very sharp.
     
  7. Ruff Draft

    Ruff Draft

    Sep 2, 2007
    Michigan
    Yes! Without any hesitation. ;) 
     
  8. Thanks guys. I would love the 24-70, but think the 28-70 might be more in my reach, and compliment my 17-35.
     
  9. fks

    fks

    Apr 30, 2005
    sf bay area
    hi rodney-

    a 17-35mm and 28-70mm on an FX will give you almost the same coverage as the 12-24mm and 17-55mm on a DX body.

    the only drawback i can see to your plan is when you need to go to your backup DX body; you won't have the same coverage. if you sell the 12-24mm, i would recommend selling all the DX bodies and switching over to two FX, giving you a true backup.

    ricky
     
  10. your 17-35 will rock on FX, sell everything and keep it:) 
     
  11. Since you have the 17-35 how about a 35-70 f/2.8D instead of the 28-70 ?

    Ronnie
     
  12. tfenne

    tfenne

    125
    Apr 10, 2008
    Cambridge, MA
    Can't give you any thoughtful comments on whether you should do this or not, but I agree with the others that if you do, you might want to keep the D300 and get rid of both D200s. If you're a little bit patient you can get a good deal on a D700 and save quite a few $$ which will help a lot. jr.com has the D700 for a little over $2600 through MS's live.com cashback scheme. They're out of stock at the moment, but I can't imagine they'll be out for too long. Two D200s and a 17-55 should get you pretty damn close to that number.
     
  13. I'd sell the D200's, the 12-24 and the 17-55 and keep the D300 as a backup to the D700. Because of their similarities that duo is a great 1-2 punch and changing back and forth between the two is fairly transparent (I just got a D700 yesterday and spent the afternoon setting it up. It's customized pretty much the same way as my D300 so switching between cams is virtually seamless).

    Your widest lens is the 12-24 which is effectively an 18-36 on FX and you can use your 17-35 on the D700 to duplicate that range. The 17-55 DX is basically 25-82 in FX terms so you can use the 24-120 to cover that range. Down the road you might want to consider selling the 24-120 and picking up a 24-70 or a 28-70.

    With that setup you can shoot the wide end with the D700 and the tele end with the D300 and not have to readjust to a different cam with different ergonomics and focusing traits.
     
  14. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    I definitely would do it, Rodney. I think you will be very happy with FX and the D700. Then sell the 12-24, 17-55 and the 24-120 and you can get yourself more glass as well :biggrin:
     
  15. Exactly!
     
  16. What Sonya said! :biggrin:
     
  17. i fully understand your point
    and.....
    here's mine:

    the D300 is a FAR better body than the D200
    as long as you keep THAT in mind when you choose.... you'll be fine
     
  18. jimeast

    jimeast

    381
    Mar 17, 2008
    Metrowest. MA
    What to sell

    I think the 28-70 is a great lens and you should be really happy with it. As far as what to sell, it's amazing what people will buy and before deciding what camera equipment you need to whittle down, do you have any junk in the attic or garage you can eBay. As I said it's amazing what people will buy and it would be nice to add the D700 before you sell any gear so you can see what fits in the new "scheme."
     
  19. AdamJ

    AdamJ

    300
    Jan 28, 2008
    Aurora, IL
    Used Digital Camera Bodies have the worst resale value compared to other photographic gear. That said you will probably take a considerable loss on the sale of the D300 and the thing is that is a great camera, especially compared to the D200.

    I would agree with the others in selling the D200 along with some of your lesser needed/wanted glass to try and afford the D700. Even if that doesn't free up enough cash then I would save for the difference.

    If you can't get a nice midrange like the 24-70 or 28-70, you should be fine with the 24-120 if you keep it stopped down to ~f/6 along with the 17-35, and for difficult indoor situations you've got some nice primes...
     
  20. Why not get the 14-24--it has an amazing reputation for sharpness and detail on either format?

    I find the gap between 50 and 80 in my own lineup a problem ever since I gave my 24-85 to my daughter. I'm looking for a replacement, perhaps the Tokina 50-135?

    But you have some great primes too that cover the same focal lengths as your shorter zooms. Could you part with the 28 in exchange for a 35 as mentioned above?

    Wish I had your "problem" :biggrin:
     
  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.