timopro Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>I have the D700 and the 14-24 / 24-70 / 105micro and 300mm AFS F/4,<br> Depends of what kinf of photo you are taking!! I' m 1000% happy with the 14-24, it's a magic lens, I use it a lot for landscape and for interior of Aircraft...<br> The 24-70 is also very interesting!!</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurbally_seth Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>I too went through the same problem.<br />Go for the 70-200 first. No need to waste money on mid-ranger 24-70 as you already have 50/1.4.<br />14-24 is a highly specialised beast. So take your time...I bought it but returned it after some use. I guess you will be better off with 17-35. But it is due for update. Hopefully, Nikon does this in 2009, along with giving us some fast primes like 28/1.4, 35/1.4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted May 23, 2009 Author Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>I think I will either go with the 17-35 or the 18-35. As far as the long end goes I think I will try to get away with the 70-300 VR. It seems that many people are using this lens on the D700 with very good results. I think the ISO performance of this camera makes it possible to use slower lenses with great results. Just shooting around the house I was amazed at good ISO 3200 looked. Probably as good as ISO 400 looked on my D200, maybe better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_fox1 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 14-24mm is the new lens but I going to buy the 17-35mm because it will fit my need best. Tele is good but, an all around lens is the 17-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejansmaic Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>70-200/2.8 VR PERIOD!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielhundley Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>Brian, I think you are making the right decision. Though Gurbally is correct in saying that the 17-35 is due for an update. Maybe hold out a couple of months to see what nikon does.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleary Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>You sound like me in your equipmet...I have both...you WILL have both...go ahead and get both...I love them both!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_reklaitis Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>I prefer Prime lenses. Get the 20mm f/2.8 and the 135mm f/2. If you buy them used, you can always sell them for at least what you paid for them - sometimes more! Plus, you will probably never sell them, since they are both such good lenses. You could get both of them for a lot less then you were planning to spend.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted May 23, 2009 Author Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>I will definitely consider some primes. One of these days I'll pull the trigger and buy the 300mm f4. That is one prime I would love to have. I don't have a problem using primes myself. Zoom are convenient no doubt, but the image quality of a good prime is tough to beat.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>No the 70-200 does not work well with an FX sensor in my experience. Why the urge to buy a zoom lens? Why settle for second best when you can have a better option for less? You could get a short and a longer prime lens, either of which would be smaller, faster, lighter, and with better image quality. Do you feel you need more than one focal length wider that 24mm? What would you use the 14mm focal length for, in addition to the 17mm and the 20mm lengths that you would get with the zoom? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_brody Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 <p>I am fortunate to own the "trinity," 14-24/24-70/70-200 for my D700. The 70-200, which I've had for a while and used on a D200 is a great lens, with some minor limitations as noted, but it's HEAVY! Unless I know I'm going to be somewhere I'll need it, I often leave it home when I hike in the Columbia Gorge or on Mt Hood. Like many others, I wish Nikon made something similar to Canon's 24-105 f/4 so I could have a bit more than 70, but not necessarily all the way out to 200. The 24-70 gets most of my use, it is sharp and fast, but a bit too short on the long end, perfect on the short end. I realize that a 24-105 f/2.8 would likely be too heavy as a walk about lens, but an f/4 would be intriguing. Even though I have had Nikons in various incarnations since the 60's, I almost got a 5D with the 24-105 since it seemed almost a perfect combo at the time. The 14-24 is a genuinely amazing lens, REALLY wide, sharp, and did I say REALLY wide? I am not historically a wide angle photographer so I'm taking my time and learning how to use it. It can be a challenge but it is fun.<br> You need to ask yourself which you'll use more, because you won't use them equally. Factor in the weight, the 14-24 is heavy too, 1kg but not like the 70-200, 1.5kg, and the balance is obviously different. Carrying all three is a challenge.<br> Good luck.<br> Eric</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted May 24, 2009 Author Share Posted May 24, 2009 <p>I wish Nikon would come out with more f4 "pro level" lenses like the Canon L series. I still miss my 70-200 f4 L. A 24-105 VR f4 would be a huge plus. Maybe it is in the works, who knows. With the high ISO performance of the D700 f4 would not be an issue. It has certainly made the 300 f4 even more appealing, use the 1.4TC and get 420mm out of it. I will probably buy the 70-300 VR for now until I decide what I want for sure. I can easily sell lenses like that on ebay and usually recoup almost all my money.<br /> I was surprised that the two most recent lenses released were DX lenses. I was hoping with 3 FX cameras on the market we would see some old lenses updated and maybe a few new range lenses for the FX sensor. I wish their price would get more in line with Canon as well. You can get a 24-70 2.8L for $1,275.00, that same lens for Nikon is $1,730.00. They need to focus on the gap between their highend 2.8 pro lenses and their cheap plastic consumer lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 <p>brian, just a thought: the tamron 28-75/2.8 will give you 90% of the IQ of the 24-70 nikkor at 1/3 the price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manakash_dali Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 <p>I recommend the 17-35 and 85/1.8. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 <p>Hi Brian,</p> <p>Does your son play sports? If so, the 70-200 would be very useful for capturing sports action shots. The 14-24 would be all but useless for photographing people. The distortion inherent in wide angle lenses is very unflattering to anything with a face.</p> <p>Here are some pros and cons to keep in mind.</p> <p><strong>70-200 f/2.8 VR G (NOTE: I own and use this lens)</strong><br> pros: excellent image quality; fast; VR works very well; great for sports and all low-light situations; virtually distortion-free; works well with teleconverters to extend its range<br> cons: some edge softness (acceptable for most applications); manageable vignetting wide open (can be corrected in post processing); large and heavy; may be due for an update (but that might not come for years); 200 mm isn't particularly long on a full-frame camera</p> <p><strong>14-24 f/2.8 (NOTE: I do NOT own this lens)</strong><br> pros: renowned optical performance; super-wide focal lengths<br> cons: less useful range than the 17-35; exposed front element could be damaged easily; won't accept filters</p> <p><strong>24-70 f/2.8 (NOTE: I own and use this lens for about 80 to 90 percent of my D700 shots)</strong><br> pros: somewhat sharper than the 70-200 (only noticeable if you compare the images side by side); very useful range for most situations; fast througout the zoom range<br> cons: physically large for a midrange zoom; 70mm isn't that long (85 or 105 would have been more useful, i.e. less lens switching); noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end (fixable in post-processing, but disappointing for a lens in this price range)</p> <p><strong>17-35 f/2.8 (NOTE: I do NOT own this lens but I wish I did)</strong><br> pros: good optical performance (but not up to the level of the 14-24); very useful range of focal lengths; accepts filters (although thin ones will be required at the wide end)<br> cons: may be a candidate for an update (but that might not happen for years); expensive considering the age of the design</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 <blockquote> <p>I wish Nikon would come out with more f4 "pro level" lenses like the Canon L series.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've never seen any indication that Nikon is moving in that direction.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 <blockquote> <p>I realize that a 24-105 f/2.8 would likely be too heavy</p> </blockquote> <p>I wouldn't mind the weight, because it would let me leave the 70-200 home more often. The 24-70 is already more than 100 mm in length and nearly as fat as the 70-200 mm. I don't see why that casing couldn't hold 24-105 mm optics. And if they tone down the distortion a bit, well that would make me really happy.</p> <p>Now it's time to wake up; I've been dreaming again. ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now