My BBB Path.... what's yours??

[rotisiao]

I not looking for too much ba. Just want to cover more range.

Current setup: Nikon D40, Sigma 18-200 HSM OS, Nikkor 18-55 ED (kitlens)
Looking at: Nikon D80/90 or D300, Sigma 18-200 HSM OS, Tokina 11-16 F2.8, Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM

i realize the Nikkor lenses are so expensive.

 

[prolensdreamer]

I not looking for too much ba. Just want to cover more range.

Current setup: Nikon D40, Sigma 18-200 HSM OS, Nikkor 18-55 ED (kitlens)
Looking at: Nikon D80/90 or D300, Sigma 18-200 HSM OS, Tokina 11-16 F2.8, Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM

i realize the Nikkor lenses are so expensive.

Time to buy lens as nikkon drop price on 10 selected lens.

 

[-ReignOfComputer-]

they should give us a package price if we buy all 3! maybe $5888 for all 3!

$888 nicer...

 

[longkangman]

I think many of us have this long term plan but in the short term... how???? no 14-24, no 24-70, no 70-200.... :sweatsm:.. that's why we start to go off course.... get a cheap 3rd party,

I use 24~70 all of the time indoor next 70~200. if I am you I get 24~70 1st. :lovegrin: :devil:

Longer term is below :devil:
D300 with long lens for distance reach.
D3 with wide zoom for wide angle.

:dunno:

 

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Current equiptment:Nikon D200,50mm f1.4,85mm f1.8,80-200 f2.8
Future equiptment(Hopefully 2 years or so):Nikon D700,24-70 f2.8,80-200mm f2.8

 

[N-user]

I use 24~70 all of the time indoor next 70~200. if I am you I get 24~70 1st. :lovegrin: Longer term is below :devil:
D300 with long lens for distance reach.
D3 with wide zoom for wide angle.

:dunno:

kekekeke so mine is push to mid term..... :sweat::sweatsm:

ya for sure if going for it... the 24-70 will come first, follow by 14-24 and last 70-200.......... but for the time beong, I am aiming to get 60mm micro for company product shoot... so for very specific use.... follow by 85mm for potrait.......... this short term goal....

 

[Blackmel]

Not all would need that range.

 

[GadgetGod]

lol for me, the 14-24 and 24-70 are both very FF-only lenses whereas the 70-200 works comfortably on both FF and APS-C. Other thing is that all 3 lenses cost around the same and in comparison the 70-200 seems to give you the most bang for buck with VR, lots of glass and a nice big cylinder! The other argument would be that a D700 would cost at least 2 of those lenses and so let's say each lens costs 1 credit. a D3 therefore costs 3 credits and a D700, 2 credits. If i only had 1 credit, the 70-200 would be the most logical choice (and the choice i made lol!). Let's say u earn another 2 credits, would you get 2 lenses or a D700? tough choice! and if u stick to APS-C and decide to invest in lenses, the 70-200 would also be the most logical choice!

 

[longkangman]

ya for sure if going for it... the 24-70 will come first, follow by 14-24 and last 70-200.......... but for the time beong, I am aiming to get 60mm micro for company product shoot... so for very specific use.... follow by 85mm for potrait.......... this short term goal....

company product shoot leave to the company to pay the bill.

your 24~70 should be able to do very good portrait shoot. ;p :thumbsup:


:dunno:

 

[lsisaxon]

Like all said... 14~24, 24~70 and 70~200 plus a d700 or a d700s(future). :dunno:

Add: SB-900.

:devil:

Me eyeing.....
14-24
24-70
PC-E 24/3.5
PC-E 45/2.8
PC-E Micro 85/2.8

And the speculated (not announced yet) lenses redesigned for FX..
70-200VR
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4

CZ lenses
ZF Distagon 25/2.8
ZF Makro-Planar 50/2
ZF Macro-Planar 100/2

Darn.. that's going to be a lot of money.. Waiting for $$$ to drop from the sky... ;p

 

[lsisaxon]

lol for me, the 14-24 and 24-70 are both very FF-only lenses whereas the 70-200 works comfortably on both FF and APS-C. Other thing is that all 3 lenses cost around the same and in comparison the 70-200 seems to give you the most bang for buck with VR, lots of glass and a nice big cylinder! The other argument would be that a D700 would cost at least 2 of those lenses and so let's say each lens costs 1 credit. a D3 therefore costs 3 credits and a D700, 2 credits. If i only had 1 credit, the 70-200 would be the most logical choice (and the choice i made lol!). Let's say u earn another 2 credits, would you get 2 lenses or a D700? tough choice! and if u stick to APS-C and decide to invest in lenses, the 70-200 would also be the most logical choice!

What's the basis for your comment that the 14-24 and 24-70 are FF only lenses? Focal length range?

14-24 on DX gives an equivalent FoV of a 21-36 on 135 format. I do remember 20-35 as a very popular wide zoom in film days.

24-70 on DX gives an equivalent FoV of a 36-105 on 135 format. 35-105 is another popular zoom range in film days.

 

[longkangman]

Me eyeing.....
14-24
24-70
PC-E 24/3.5
PC-E 45/2.8
PC-E Micro 85/2.8

And the speculated (not announced yet) lenses redesigned for FX..
70-200VR
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4

CZ lenses
ZF Distagon 25/2.8
ZF Makro-Planar 50/2
ZF Macro-Planar 100/2

Darn.. that's going to be a lot of money.. Waiting for $$$ to drop from the sky... ;p

I only need 24~70 and maybe 70~200.

For you following are impt :devil:
PC-E 24/3.5
PC-E 45/2.8
PC-E Micro 85/2.8


:angel:

 

[N-user]

lol for me, the 14-24 and 24-70 are both very FF-only lenses whereas the 70-200 works comfortably on both FF and APS-C. Other thing is that all 3 lenses cost around the same and in comparison the 70-200 seems to give you the most bang for buck with VR, lots of glass and a nice big cylinder! The other argument would be that a D700 would cost at least 2 of those lenses and so let's say each lens costs 1 credit. a D3 therefore costs 3 credits and a D700, 2 credits. If i only had 1 credit, the 70-200 would be the most logical choice (and the choice i made lol!). Let's say u earn another 2 credits, would you get 2 lenses or a D700? tough choice! and if u stick to APS-C and decide to invest in lenses, the 70-200 would also be the most logical choice!

hopefully will get there (70-200) but at the moment, my shooting range is around 14 to 80mm..... only 100mm for macro.... so make sense for me to go for the 14-24 first bah.... :lovegrin:

 

[jeanie]

Me eyeing.....
14-24
24-70
PC-E 24/3.5
PC-E 45/2.8
PC-E Micro 85/2.8

And the speculated (not announced yet) lenses redesigned for FX..
70-200VR
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4

CZ lenses
ZF Distagon 25/2.8
ZF Makro-Planar 50/2
ZF Macro-Planar 100/2

Darn.. that's going to be a lot of money.. Waiting for $$$ to drop from the sky... ;p

why only the pce85 is micro ah?you mean my 24mm cannot take micro ah?

i would love a new 70-200, and 85 f1.4, complete with AFS and VRII

and
my wish list will be

d4
d5
d6
d7
d8.
.
.
.
.

i love nikon.:lovegrin:

 

[GadgetGod]

What's the basis for your comment that the 14-24 and 24-70 are FF only lenses? Focal length range?

14-24 on DX gives an equivalent FoV of a 21-36 on 135 format. I do remember 20-35 as a very popular wide zoom in film days.

24-70 on DX gives an equivalent FoV of a 36-105 on 135 format. 35-105 is another popular zoom range in film days.

I never said that 14-24 and 24-70 could only be used on ff i just said that they were highly FF-inclined lenses

Fine then, take it as though my guesses are completely random but my guess is that nikon made the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 to go together cuz maybe it's just by pure coincidence that the numbers flow well. It's also highly peculiar that all 3 happen to be FF lenses and that nikon seems to make a DX version of the 24-70 known as the 17-55. This could be because Nikon felt that the "classic" 24-70 is a good range to work with for most people and so to satisfy these people (including me) who feel that classic 36mm is not nearly wide enough as a walkabout lens. Therefore it is to my instincts that i felt that the lenses 14-24 and 24-70 were more focused towards the FF user. Once again, this is really blatant statements on my part but it's just my personal point of view which i thought would be worth sharing.

 

[lsisaxon]

I never said that 14-24 and 24-70 could only be used on ff i just said that they were highly FF-inclined lenses

Fine then, take it as though my guesses are completely random but my guess is that nikon made the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 to go together cuz maybe it's just by pure coincidence that the numbers flow well. It's also highly peculiar that all 3 happen to be FF lenses and that nikon seems to make a DX version of the 24-70 known as the 17-55. This could be because Nikon felt that the "classic" 24-70 is a good range to work with for most people and so to satisfy these people (including me) who feel that classic 36mm is not nearly wide enough as a walkabout lens. Therefore it is to my instincts that i felt that the lenses 14-24 and 24-70 were more focused towards the FF user. Once again, this is really blatant statements on my part but it's just my personal point of view which i thought would be worth sharing.

Not really against your reasonings or anything but just that I felt the older 17-35/28-70 combo are more FF inclined. I just wanted to hear your motivations for that comment you make because I may have missed out something. A well made FX lens can be used on a DX body as well but not the other way round.

 

[lsisaxon]

why only the pce85 is micro ah?you mean my 24mm cannot take micro ah?

i would love a new 70-200, and 85 f1.4, complete with AFS and VRII

Oops... the PC-E Micro 45/2.8 is micro also. The 24/3.5 is not.

 

[jeanie]

Oops... the PC-E Micro 45/2.8 is micro also. The 24/3.5 is not.

:cry:

 

[N-user]

Okay, in fantasy land long enough and already no more salive for the D700/D3 & SB900.... :sweatsm:...... back to reality.... unless tonite ho say..... :lovegrin:....

Already have:
1. 50mm/f1.8 - for Potrait
2. 35mm/f2- for Potrait and general use
3. Tokina 100mm macro... for insects/ants/worms what have you macro.....

Love the ulitmate & lethal combination of Nikon14-24, 24-70, 70-200........ but sadly after thinking through.... will take me many many many many years to save that kind of $$$... and will have miss tons of opportunity........ so reality check and a more realstic target base on my shooting habit:

What I am quite sure I will be getting:
1. AFS VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.... for occasional long range shoot.... just cannot justify if I don't shoot often at this range to get a much more ex fast lens
2. Nikon AFS 60mm micro for all the flowers/plant, Produst shoot etc etc and some Potrait

What I am not sure are the following.... would love to stick with Nikon lens but.....
1. Tokina 11-16mm - purely for landscape
2. 17mm to 70mm range........ this is where I am stuck........... try not to go into DX lens because still got a tinker of hope that one day, FF will be more affordable.... else would go for Tamron 17-50mm.......... will use this for general walkabout, architecture shoot....

 

[mcn]

Okay, in fantasy land long enough and already no more salive for the D700/D3 & SB900.... :sweatsm:...... back to reality.... unless tonite ho say sorry, already reserved for me..... :lovegrin:....



Love the ulitmate & lethal combination of Nikon14-24, 24-70, 70-200........ but sadly after thinking through.... will take me many many many many years to save that kind of $$$... and will have miss tons of opportunity........ so reality check and a more realstic target base on my shooting habit: and it will break your aching back

two lens combo meal 4me

(1) afs 18-55mm vr
(2) afs 55-200mm vr

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: