D700 and D300 - for long telephoto lens

<p>dear Guys,<br>

I have D300 and my present lens is 70-200 AFS-VR, 300mm AF-s f/4 and TC14EII, With 17-55 mm AFS-f/2.8 , 105mm AFs-VR MACRO,80-AF200mm f/2.8 ED-D,. Now I may be buying one D700.My interest is MACRO , WIld Life, Nature, LAndscape and Birds. I want your suggestionon whether I shold go for 14-24 mm/f/2.8 for land scape which is best for D700 or I should trade off the same D700 and 14-24 for 400mm or 500 mm f/4? I will be greatful for your advice Guys. Thanks</p>

<p>You could start by looking at John Shaw's list of equipment, <a href="http://johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html">http://johnshawphoto.com/equipment.html</a></p>

<p>The D700 would offer primarily better high ISO images. The 14-24 on the D700 would offer only a slight advantage if any in extreme wide angle imaging (only slight since the 17-55 is already such a nice lens). Only you can tell if this is better for you than extending your tele-foto range.</p>

<p>When upgrading a while ago I got the D3 instead of an D300 because I have a number of AIS lenses and wanted to take advantage of these on FX and the high ISO capability. I own a MF 300mm f2.8 and that is all I need on the long end. In your situation I would first add the 500mm lens just for the extended versatility. You can always later change to FF if you really need it once prices for FF come down a bit or the pixel density of the D3x becomes available at a lower price in a D800 body. The loss if you sell the D300 and the 17-55 is already there and connot get much worse, at least if compared to what you save if the newer technology gets a discount later.</p>

<p>We have discussed many times that the 14-24mm/f2.8 is not really a landscape lens for FX because it is too wide and cannot take filters. However, it is a fantastic building interior lens. For landscape, I would get the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. I own both lenses and have plenty of personal experience with both.<br>

<br />If you use a lot of long teles, I would stick with a DX body. If I were in your situation, I would add the long tele first, but a good bird lens will cost a lot of money. Consider at least a 500mm/f4 AF-S.<br>

<br />I spent a week shooting with John Shaw about a month and half ago. I have pointed out before that the equipment list on his web site is not totally update to date. He has switched to the D3 now, but he also replaced the 28-70mm/f2.8 with the 24-70mm/f2.8 G. He is staying with the 17-35mm/f2.8 for landscape, though, for reason I have already pointd out. Shaw actually uses a 500mm/f4 instead of 600mm/f4, mainly because the 600mm/f4 is too big and heavy for travel.</p>

<p>I find it funny that people assume that a landscape lens must be wide. I've seen landscapes shot with standard and short telephotos as well. To me, wides and super wides aren't ideal for landscapes for the simple reason that I end up with a lot of empty space (either sky or foreground). But then, horses for courses and chacun son gout. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>One thing... if you're interested in Macro, a macro lens would do best as they are specially designed for close-distance focusing. The super wide you're asking about would be the last I'd use for macro or wild life. If you already have the 70-200, just add a teleconverter and you'll end up with a very good wild life lens. Of course, if you can swing the longer ones... then you're really set. Take care!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For landscapes I would not be without my 14mm lens on full frame. The choice of focal length is based on the way one "sees" and on what one wants to achieve. Filter use becomes secondary and theres always ways around that if you're willing to invest in large format filters. Having shot with a 17mm lens on film for over 15 years I can tell you that their is a significant difference using a 14mm lens which I do now. Having said that, composing images with a 14 or 17mm lens on full frame is a challenge many photographers are not interested in. What you have with a 17-55 on a crop body is vastly different than what you would have with a 14-24 on full frame. You're talking about going from about a 27mm lens to a 14mm lens, on the wide side, on full frame. A D700 and 14-24 is a lot of money to invest if you are not a serious superwide angle nut, like myself. I suspect that you already know if you are or not, but only you can answer this. I also insist on having a 65mm lens on a 4x5 camera, about 16mm on full frame. </p>

<p>I also have a crop body and manual focus 400/2.8 for sports that I would not be without either. So I fully understand your desire for a 400 or 500mm lens. In my case I upgraded the wide end before I upgraded the telephoto end. Which way you go is fully dependent on your shooting habits. You simply have to ask yourself which one you would use the most.</p>

<p>You should think about selling your 80-200 since it is a duplicate.</p>

<p>Having seen your portfolio I "suspect" that you would enjoy the full frame and superwide more than a supertelephoto on the crop body but I would definitely hold off on the 14-24 until you see how you like the 17-55 on full frame. Also think about how often you would take a 400/2.8 or 500/4 to India or Dubai, or other exotic destination. I know I would only take mine for longer trips where I new I'd be using a car a lot.</p>

<p>There are a lot of great landscape images capture with wide and super wides (roughly the 17 to 24mm range). If you have problems with a lot of empty space in those situations, you should try harder to find better subject matters. However, I find 17mm to be plenty wide on FX. 14mm is so extreme that it is indeed difficult to find the appropriate subject matters.<P>

Therefore, unless you have a real need in the 14-16mm range, you are much better off with the 17-35mm whose long end is far more useful for a lot of situations, landscape or not. And of course the 17-35 can take filters.</p>

<p>I agree with all of the posters who recommend a DX body for use with long lenses--300mm and up. I also prefer the DX body for macro work too. That mag factor is a HUGE plus in long lens work and can be a plus in macro work too. I just got back from Bosque del Apache NWR and here are the lenses I used on my D 200 and D 300: 500mm f 4.0AFS II; tc 14EII; 70-200mm f 2.8 AFS VR ; 18-70mm AFS DX; and 200mm f 4.0 AF macro. Joe Smith</p>

<p>Don't mean to divert the topic of the thread, but Shun, since you met John Shaw recently, does he find the 70-200 AFS corner softness on FX to be an issue (just curious, as he is a nature pro and into landscapes etc.)?</p>

<p>Hmmm... You're right, Shun... but first and foremost, before coming across as a curmudgeon or a contrarian, I must admit publicly that I don't like landscapes. The very few times I've felt like photographing something like a landscape I had to deal with lots of sky or foreground. Indeed, I better look for some other subject matter. </p>

<p>Or use a long lense instead. I kinda like the "compressed" view. Or else, change my horizon line. </p>

<p>To answer Narayan's question, the very first time I saw the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR was none other than John Shaw's, but that was back in the summer of 2003 when he was shooting with a D1X at the time.<br>

I did ask him about the corner sharpness issue last month. Apparently he is aware of it but it doesn't seem to bother him. But he didn't have that lens with him on that that recent trip. Instead, he was using a 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR as his tele. That is yet another lens not on his equipment list. Therefore, I wouldn't take the list on his site too seriously.<br>

As I have demonstrated in another thread, the sharpness issue on the 70-200 is only limited to the extreme corners at 200mm. It is going to bother some people in certainly situations. To me, it is largely a non-issue.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun. I appreciate the info.</p>