Third-Party Lens Choices for nikon d700?
I will buy my nikon d700 soon but i can't afford the 24-70mm 2.8 since it's 1800 off ebay
i can afford cheaper glass but i'm not sure what lens would be great specially third party lenses any advice? Thank you
i'm not a pro photographer i'm just learning
i do have at this moment
80-200 2.8 af nikon
70-200 2.8 af tamron
28-105mm 2.8 af tmron
50mm 1.4 nikon af
24 1.8 sigma
all above i use on my nikon d90
I'd start by selling either the Nikon 80-200 or the Sigma 70-200; there's no point in having both.
Other than that, what focal length are you wanting to buy? You've got a decent spread. You can either go wider (like a Sigma 10-20) or go longer (consider a 1.4 or a 2x teleconverter).
Have to agree with Scott… No point in having both the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 and the Tammy covering the same focal length (70-200mm). I'd sell the Tamron if you're going to dump one of these two lenses. I also don't think there's a lot of point in buying a great body like the D700 and then crippling it with cheap, third party glass but, that's just my opinion. I'd rather have a cheaper crop-body like the D7000 or D300s with great glass than a D700 with cheap glass. Bodies come and go fairly often and the D700 will likely be replaced by something newer and better within the next 12 months. Lenses on the other hand, have a much greater impact on image quality and have been known to remain in production for a decade or more. As such, lenses are a much more worthwhile investment.
Having said all this, I'm not a big fan of Tamron's 28-105mm f/2.8 because of past experience with Tamron lenses. I've had one two many of them fail at the worst possible times. I'm not a pro either but, even for amateurs like us, some shots are a once in a lifetime opportunity and it sucks to have your gear let you down when those moments come. So if it was my dime, I'd rather have Nikon's old 28-70mm f/2.8D AF-S zoom if the current 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S is out of the budget. I recognize how cheap the Tammy is by comparison so if you are happy with your copy, keep it. I prefer the heavier Nikon 28-70mm specifically because it was/is built like a tank when I was shooting film.
The Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a handy lens to have on both full-frame and crop-body cameras. It's an ideal portrait lens on the D90 or a great general purpose and low-light prime on the D700. Given the move to full-frame and the fact you've already got the 50mm f/1.4, I'd be tempted to dump the 24mm Sigma for something wider especially since you've already got the Tamron to get you to 28mm. You could sell the 24mm Sigma, 70-200mm Tamron, and 28-105mm Tamron and you might actually have the cash for Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8G or at least the 28-70mm f/2.8, either of which pairs well with the 80-200mm f.2.8 Nikkor you already own. Beyond that, with D700, I might even consider skipping the mid-range stuff all together and run nothing but a Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR and your 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor. Just a thought based on my experience with Nikon.
Unfortunately, I went to Canon when I went to digital but, that doesn't really change the focal lengths one uses. For what it is worth, the only lenses I ever mount on my Canon 5D Mark II, the camera are a 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. I've come around to the fact that when ever I want/need anything shorter than 70mm, it is 35mm or shorter (hence the 16-35mm) and any time I need anything long than 50mm, it's almost always 80mm or longer (hence the 70-200mm or 80-200mm in your case). That's my style of shooting… You'll need to make your own decision based on how you shoot.
You might consider Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Lens
I love this lens! Really awesome for landscape shots. However, it is heavy and after lugging it around all day it's weight is noticiable. Pictures are crisp. It's a fun lens to play with despite the weight.
http://www.amazon.com/...B0026FCKC8
http://rover.ebay.com/...m270.l1313