DSLRUsers.com

After a fair bit of research I am still confused.Using the Nikon site to see what lens are compatable they still list many Dx lens.Is this because you can still use these on the D700.I have to shoot my daughters wedding in 8 weeks so I need to expand my lens range.My usual subjects are sport related, but I think I need wide angle and A portrait lens.
Existing
Sigma 120-300 f2.8
Nikor 80-400 VR
Nikor 35-701:2.8D
I would appreciate help from those more experienced--inmotion

The simple answer is that DX lenses are not really useful on FX bodies as they can produce vignetting.

Your 35-70 will be useful but not wide so consider going down one of two routes:

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 (this will cover your wide to normal range and you can then use your 35-70 as a portrait lens)

OR

Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 (this will be wide on the D700 and is a good portrait/general purpose lens)

either of these lenses coupled with your 80-400VR should give you pretty good coverage for that wedding.

aim54x wrote:Your 35-70 will be useful but not wide

Actually, in the daze of yore, when I used to shoot several weddings each weekend (on filum, digital and DX were still to be even thought of, let alone invented) the widest I would be shooting with was 35mm.

As Chris says, all DX lenses may be used on the D700, and in that regard you actually have two modes of operation. In the first instance, and this is the default mode, you can shoot in DX mode. There won't be vignetting, but your images will be a nudge under 6MP, being DX. Basically, you'll be using your D700 as if it were a D70.

Mode two is to shoot in FX mode, which will mean full FX image sizes and resolution, and lots of vignetting.

You would be better off getting lenses that are not designated as DX. Those lenses will be able to handle the FX sensor with ease.

Given that you have the 35-70, I'd suggest a couple of relatively low cost but very useful options for you: grab the 50 f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. These two, combined, will still be way less expensive than the 24-70, and they are also faster. And lighter.

If you are worried that 35 isn't wide enough, perhaps grab a Nikkor 24mm prime as well, but on FX, at that wide an angle, I'd be quite concerned about introducing distortion into the images.

If budget is not a concern for you, get the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200, and then maybe the 24-70, although I still think that 24 is too wide for weddings.

The 80-400? It may be useful at a wedding, and especially at its wider end, and moreso if you don't get the 70-200.

But, a question ...

I have to shoot my daughters wedding

You have to shoot this? This is your daughter's wedding; shouldn't you be giving her away? Enjoying yourself?

yeah, agree

Your own daughter's wedding ? Bet you could get a good photographer for less than a cost of a new lens.

Never-the-less the 24-70, and 70-200 are both lenses you should aspire too, especially the latter if you shoot sports - it's perfect on FX for tennis, basketball etc

A good option for wide that wont hurt the pocket too much is the 18-35 3.5-4.5D Nikkor, Half the price of a 17-35.
You can get good D lenses cheep that work ace on an FX camera- 28-105(i got one of these for $170), 28-80, 24-120, 24-85.
Im finding lens speed is not so much of a problem now that I can shoot all the way up to 6400 ISO with good results.
with G, shooting a wedding is hard work and stressful and you wont have time to enjoy it.
I only happens once, hopefully

Mick

Also consider that non-DX lenses can be used on non-FX cameras