Jump to content

D700 and older lenses


james_priestley

Recommended Posts

<p>After shooting with my friend's D700 for a good week, I was convinced that it's time to move on to a camera with an FX sensor. So I'm buying a D700, and was looking for a nice mid-range zoom to start off with until I get the money for a 17-35 and 70-200 + a 50mm prime. Particularly, I've been looking at some older AF lenses originally made for film cameras.<br>

I'm looking into buying a mint condition AF-n 28-85mm (f/3.5-4.5). Based off of reviews that I've read, it seems like a good starting place until I can afford some better glass. My question is, am I in any way hindering my experience with the D700 by using older film AF lenses? Does anyone have any experience with this lens in particular? Does anyone have any lens suggestions around the same focal length range of comparitive quality/price? <br>

Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance! :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>James, I think you are doing this all backward. I would get the lenses ready and then buy the body. DSLRs depreciate over time rather quickly. When you get the camera, hopefully you'll already have some good lenses ready to take full advantage of the camera.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was very unimpressed with the 28-85mm AF N long time ago when I had one. I would consider the 28-70/3.5-4.5D or the 28-105/3.5-4.5D if you want a standard zoom on a budget - these are good lenses. The 35-70 seems to me to have a limited range and the autofocus isn't up to today's standards but some like it.</p>

<p>No, actually many film lenses perform better on FX than some lenses designed for digital in the era before FX came about. You just need to know which lenses to get. ;-)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think your choice is a good one. It is "cheap as chips" on eBay as these lenses were commonly sold with top end consumer cameras in the early 1990s but the lens still has the ability to turn in pin sharp images with good contrast and color, and relatively little wide end distrotion. I would go so far as to say that peraps the main issue with this lens is that it was overshadowed by the 35-70mm f2.8 which is still made due to its extreme high performance. Its only significant downside that I have been able to see is that it flares quite a lot when the sun is in frame or near it. But that is a small price to pay for the otherwise excellent performance from a consumer grade lens (well, prosumer anyway.) If you have not yet bought, I would advise buying the second version of this lens, not the first. Apart from the nicer handling, some authorrities claim it to have better optics (admittedly though others claim the upgrade was only cosmetic.) I do not know for sure but can say I own the second version of this lens and its a "cracker." I am sorry I cannot answer your main question directly other than to say that I still have mine and use it on my D200 and as its not a D lens I suppose there is a slight loss of functionality there but otherwise I do not notice it. I have other more expensive later lenses but have no plans to sell this one. In fact I still own the 70-210mm F3.5-4.5 AF that accompanied it too and despite owning lenses like the 180mm f2.8 do not plan to sell this either as I know I cannot buy a replacement that is anything near this in quality for the pittance I would get paid if I did sell.</p>

<p>If you have not seen this page before this link takes you to pages on this lens, starting with version 1 of the AF.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2885mm/index.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2885mm/index.htm</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the insight Peter! I also was drawn towards the 28-85 for its more robust construction, being mostly metal as compared to the generic plastic prosumer lenses in its class. I was also looking at the 35-70mm f2.8, but the low availability and high asking prices for new / mint condition models shifted my interest in favor of the 28-85. And yes, I was looking at the AF-n version, with the cosmetic upgrade. I read that it has particularly nicer handling on the manual focus ring, as the original had a thin plastic ring, while the AF-n uses a ruberized-plastic that is much easier to handle. </p>

<p>Thanks again for the help, I think I've made my decision. :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Glad to have helped. I <em>do</em> think this lens is vastly under rated by the general photography community and the only reason I can really proffer is that its because it was so widely available in its day and still is. I suppose too its ranking was not helped by its zoom range which for many, was not especially useful on a DX camera (although I liked it as I prefer a slightly longer lens. IN any event on a D700 I would expect it to perform well based on my personal experience. Sure its not their top pro lens either then or now but its a very respectable performer - then and now! If you look at my Flickr site, most of the earlier photos were shot with this lens. More recently I have been trying other mainly more modern lenses but the performance of the venerable lens is still up there with them if not ahead in many instances.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/page10/</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think Shun's advice is getting underrated, and not the 28-85 :-)<br>

Might be me, but to me the major advantage of FX over current DX are 3 points:</p>

<p>1. High ISO performance. If you need it, you need it; but as a normal amateur I find ISO1600 on the D300 suffices.<br>

2. Wide angle lenses; though there are plenty good DX wide angles available, so this point is not that critical anymore.<br>

3. Less depth of field possible with fast lenses.</p>

<p>Now personally, only the last point is of interest to me; but it does mean that if I ever buy a D700 it will see primes 90% of the time, and not a consumer zoom. I just do not see a €1800 body with a €200 lens, it's like a Ferrari on spare tires.<br>

So, I'd either follow Shun's advice, and first get the good lenses which will do justice to your future FX camera, or shop around for 2nd hand primes (which can be dirt cheap). And why wait for buying a 50mm? The 50 f/1.8 is as cheap as lenses get and hard to fault (at its price for sure).<br>

If not, go for the Tamron Hans recommends.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There is one more advantage of FX over DX: Lenses tend to perform better on FX than on DX given the larger pixels on FX and hence lesser resolution requirements on FX (same number of pixels assumed here which is the case with D700/D300).<br>

So, cheap lenses do better on FX than on DX and I think, James, your approach is a good one.<br>

Shun, your comment is valid too but it looses a bit, if the cameras in question do not use similar lens sets. FX lenses are different from DX lenses, an FX mid-range zoom used on a DX camera lacks range at the wide end etc.<br>

I have the AF-S 17-35/2.8, the AF 80-200/2.8 and the AF 50/1.4, complemented with the 28-105/3.5-4.5. This setup perfectly fits my needs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The issue at hand is not buy glass first, camera second, it's the utter lack of prosumer level FX glass from Nikon. Most of these lenses were DC after nikon phased out film cameras and have yet to be updated for digital.<br>

THAT SAID:<br>

I regularly use my Nikkor 28-200 AF-G as a walking around lens, and it works just fine, in fact last trip to Europe, this was my "day time" lens with an 28-70 f/2.8 as my "night time" lens. the combo worked beautiful and made sure I had room in my bag for souvenirs <br>

THAT SAID, I have had some BAD LUCK with the lack of anti-reflective glass especially in my 50 f/1.4 with sensor reflections, see attached.<br>

(this was a perfectly posed <strong>autistic</strong> child, g<em>onna be the photo of the year for his mother</em>, and the xmas lights reflecting just ruined, it, well beyond my photoshop skills to repair).</p>

<p> </p><div>00Tuhi-153775584.jpg.6f77ca11ada3d2211dc1f4c5ab249b39.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>So, cheap lenses do better on FX than on DX and I think, James, your approach is a good one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not entirely true. Just compare my D300 vs. D700. The D700 is less demanding in the center, but it uses a lot more from the edge of the image circle where cheap lenses tend to do falter. The D3X is the most demanding among them all since it demands excellent edge performance, where even lenses such as the 17-35mm/f2.8 and 14-24mm/f2.8 tend to show their limitations.</p>

<P>

Generally speaking, I wouldn't buy an FX body until you have sufficient money to get the body and some decent lenses so that you can take full advantage of it from day 1. DSLR bodies are updated very frequently, and even lenses are updated every several years. Essentially it pays to wait, but of course you don't want to wait forever or we'll all be dead. What I would avoid is buying components prematurely.

</P>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I see Shun's point, but when I say I'd be buying a 17-35mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, I meant it as in the next few months. I don't think the D700 will be out-dated by another camera within its class in that time period. </p>

<p>So when I buy it, I'd like to have a nice midranged zoom to use the camera until I have the money to buy the more expensive glass in the following months. A midranged zoom + 50mm f/1.8 prime for low light would hold me over until then for most things in my opinion.</p>

<p>My primary interests in moving to a full frame sensor are exactly what Wouter outlined. The high ISO performance really shines, as I have a tendency to take a lot of photos in situations with dim lighting. Add that to the fact that I'm a big fan of wide angle shots . Having played with a D300 in conjunction with DX wide angle lenses like the 12-24 f/4, I find them lackluster in comparison to shooting wide angle shots with a full frame sensor. I have a friend with a D700 and a 17-35mm f/2.8, and I was completely blown away. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Last I heard the 17-35mm lens was discontinued by Nikon...and was (is) not quite as good on full-frame digital as it was (is) on film. So you might want to hold off on that one for now and see if Nikon announces something in the next 3-6 months...Otherwise the primes (50mm; 85mm and certainly the 105 2.5 ais) are all very good to excellent on full frame digital - if you don't mind changing lenses and can live without a zoom, that might be a better option...</p>

<p>Anyway, have fun with getting the kit you want...</p>

<p>rdc/nyc</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I wasn't aware that the 17-35mm was being discontinued. It was first on my list to get though. Nikon still lists it on their site if I recall correctly, and it's still listed on Ritz, Adorama, J&R, B&H Photo and Video and Amazon. And yes, the 17-35mm is just downright <em>amazing</em> on a D700 from what I've been able to play around with them for, and from what I've seen from other people.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>nikon 20-35 f2.8 and a fifty (i highly recommend the 50mm f1.8 af made in japan version) is what i work on 99.9% of the time. i paid $500 for the 20-35 and want for nothing, brilliant and cheap (my favourite combination).</p>

<p>in my bag, for every assignment. i carry a d700, 50mm, 20-35mm, super beat up old push pull 80-200 f2.8 and a d2xs. paid less than a new 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi there, I have recently switched from D2x, D200 and D300 to D3 and D700 ie: DX to FX - Glass? I have tons of it, but have got rid of all my DX lenses apart from an 18-55 which I use on an Infrared D100. The most useful lens - if you want a walk about, that will not give you neck strain - I find is a 28-200. I have the new AFS 12-24 f2.8 and the 24-70f2.8 and a 70-200f2,8. Also the 17-35 f2.8, which you can still get hold of, but I would advise hurrying. In older lenses I have the 105 f2 DC, 105 Micro, 70-180 Micro, 80-400mm, 300 f4, 500 f4 P, 1000 reflex, 24 PCE, and several smaller lenses like 50mm f1.8, 16mm fisheye, etc. This may seem like overkill, but I tend to travel light, two or three bodies each with a lens for the project in hand. One lens worth a mention that is cheap is the 35-70 f3.3, an excellent little lens. Until recently I had the old 70-210 D version which was almost as fast as some of my AFS lenses, and the non D version is no slouch either. Nikons inbuilt backward compatibility means that even manual AI lenses will work, and and AF - D lens should work fine with the D700. My advice has always been - never skimp on the glass, you may upgrade the bodies but the good glass remains some of mine is pre digital but still provides superb results.. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...