What Lens Do You Have On Your D700 Right Now?

<p>Right now - the 21mm Distagon ZF. What an amazing lens.</p>

<p>35/1.4 AIS is almost always on this past month.</p>

<p>Calvin. Sure, the 24-70 is sometimes to short. Time for the 70-300 when that happens. I guess the reason for my satisfaction is that I started out in SLR photography with a Pentax Spotmatic years ago, a 35mm, a 50mm and a 135mm. Graduated to a Nikon N90S with a 20mm, 28-70 and a 70-300. It's all a matter of what your used to, or what your comfortable with. I still use my feet for a zoom when required. As you can see from all the comments above, lens choice is largely a personal choice, and one where group agreement is unlikely to happen.</p>

<p>Is the 35mm F1.4 an uncommon Nikkor model? It's not listed by my favorite local retailers.</p>

<p>No lens just a microscope :-)</p>

<p>The 35 1.4 is a manual focus lens. There are now two autofocus models out by Nikon...35 1.8DX and 35 f2.0D. The 1.4 can be had used but it is not super easy to find because it is an excellent lens.<br>

I use three primes mostly on my D700's<br>

35 f.2D, 50 1.4D, and 85 1.4D<br>

My most used zooms right now are: 17-35 f2.8AFS, 28-70 f2.8AFS, and 70-200 2.8VR G</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Manual focus 105mm f/1.8 AIs. This old classic works superbly on the D700; sharp to the corners at all apertures and no discernible CA or fringing. Colour quality is nice and neutral too. Now if it only had macro focusing as well....</p>

<p>Also just got an old (scalloped barrel) 35mm f/2 Nikkor O.C. and am well impressed with that too. There's a tiny bit of CA in the very corners but the edges are free of it. Apart from that it's a good performer. I used to own a single-coated version years ago, and have regretted ever selling it. Now I'm re-united with a multi-coated version of it and couldn't be happier!</p>

<p>So don't despise these old MF lenses. The build quality means that they're a good investment and most old prime lenses will give stunning IQ on a modern DSLR, in many cases far better than all but the highest priced zooms available today. And how difficult is it to turn a little collar and watch for the green focus confirmation dot?</p>

<p>Words of wisdom, Gary.</p>

<p>24-70, and I rarely feel it's too short.</p>

<p>@ Calvin N. - thanks. I hear you on the 16-85. It is a good range. As a Canon shooter (ducking) that shot the D700 and 24-70 2.8 for a few months while I waited for 5D2 (long story but I will say that I liked the D700 a ton) that also happens to work in a pretty well regarded camera shop and sells both Nikon and Canon every day I do think that there is a valid point all rants aside. Nikon for some reason has really dropped the ball when it comes to their pro shooters that don't want to spend 1700 dollars for a lens. No F4 (smaller and lighter and cheaper) lenses such as the (and not saying I like them - as i said above I'm a prime guy - the main reason I stayed with canon) 24-105 or 17-40. I would love to see Nikon produce a modern G version of the 24-85 2.8-4. I love that lens and most that have it do as well. It's sharp...not too heavy...has a great macro and covers a nice range (i sell plenty to d700 guys now). Nikon should do something similar with a fx version. Add 20 MM and VR and keep the price around 1000 and you have a champ....</p>

<p>My "by default" lens is a 50mm prime. Currently, the AFS version. Sometimes is too long to my liking.</p>

<p>i found that also - I know 50 is considered the "normal" lens but it isn't that pleasing to me for anything other than documenting a person. Not a portrait and not really wide enough for what I see as street shooting. I love 35mm as a normal lens on FF. I really can't figure why the new 35 1.8 was designed for DX...silly in my opinion<br>

JC</p>

<p>Right now it is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I have the 24-70 and it is a great lens but for me not a carry everywhere hunk of glass. Sometimes it's a 24mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Right now the big and beautiful AF-S 14-24 is on my D700 (or should I say the camera is attached to this fabulous lens?). My camera-bag for daily use in the week is a big Billingham 550 and I set it up to hold the D700 with 14-24 in the middle.<br>

On the weekends however the D700 is mounted on the AF-S 200/2 VR - sometimes with a TC-14E between them. A Thinktankphoto Glass-Taxi holds both (or three) of them.<br>

And if I'm just walking around there's a good chance that an old prime like an Ai-converted 105/2.5 or 35/2.0 (hey Joe, mine is a scalloped Nikkor O . C Auto too - great lens) is mounted.<br>

georg</p>

<p>Wow. The 35mm F1.4 must be so top drawer that its advantages outweigh the constant need to focus manually.</p>

<p>Just got back from Venice... to tell the truth, an used plastic nikkor 28-200 spent the most time on the camera during the day. This was the first real outing with this lens, and I'm pretty darn happy with the results.<br>

At night I fell back to a sigma 24-70 f/2.8, and it performed great.</p>

<div></div>

<p>JC, at the risk of going off-topic, what are your first-hand impressions on the Mark II vs. the D700?</p>

<p>90% of the time the 85 f1.4 is on the camera with the 35 f2 in a pocket</p>

<p>Calvin - for fear of being shot down I have some sympathy with your question as to whether 70mm is "too short" on FX. Certainly on DX for me, my 50mm prime - however good it is - is in a kind of "no mans land" focal length (effective 75mm) that I find far, far less useful than my 35mm (effective 50mm) at wider end and 85mm (effective 130mm) at longer end.</p>

<p>Indeed it is one of my very few fears when I do go to FX that my beloved 85/1.4 will 'come back' into this focal length range which I find less useful, and on another thread indeed I am asking questions about the 105VR macro and the f/2.0 105 and 135 DC lenses to 'replace' what the 85 currently does for me on DX.</p>

<p>Back to your basic question though, just currently I am totally in love with my 24mm prime in terms of focal length on DX. What this means I guess is brilliant news when I go to FX D700 as the equivalent (my 35/2) is even better quality and faster... in fact one of my favourite lenses altogether. I can't wait to use it on a full frame sensor!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I may not be typical... With my D700, 105mm 2.8 VR macro is on right now and the most frequent one. I take my watches often. Sorry, this is not "walkabout".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right on, Ken! I take better photos with the 105mm VR lens than with any other. I think it's due to a combination of several factors:</p>

<p>(1) Good for "casual macro", for portraits, and as a short zoom.</p>

<p>(2) Razor-sharp</p>

<p>(3) Narrow viewing angle (?) compared to 50mm or shorter lenses seems to force me to get close and compose my photos better. No junk or blank space on the sides.</p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9038272-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9038272-md.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p>

<p>Of course a good photographer can get great results with lots of different lenses. I'm saying that this lens gives me better results than I deserve!</p>

<p>Calvin, why do assume that a zoom lens is an obvious choice?  I would have thought that one would go for a prime lens/s and then if a compromise is required, then look at zooms.</p>

<p>I'm sorry to see that I'm the first to mention the 17-35. It's on my D700 most of the time, and is on it right now. </p>

<p>I've never liked the 24-70 range. To me, that equals boring. I go wide or use the 80-200 . . . and use the 50 AFs for anything in the middle. Happy shooting.</p>

<p>Bernard, I'm in love with the 85mm F1.4 too.</p>

<p>Because it's a portrait lens I actually don't think you'll encounter any drawback transporting it to a full-frame body. If anything you'll gain the benefit of not having to stand so far from your subject, yeah?</p>

<p>At the minute, there's a 135mm f2.8 series E lens on my D700.</p>

<p>Tom, I'm in agreement with you. Speed is king.</p>

<p>I'd love to see a Nikkor 24mm F1.4 which to me would be as close to a perfect walkabout prime as you can get. Unfortunately there's no such thing. I know of the 24mm F2.8, but apart from weight is there any reason one would choose it over the classic 24-70mm F2.8?</p>