What Lens Do You Have On Your D700 Right Now?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by whoz_the_man_huh, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. Also which lens or combination thereof do you use most frequently, particularly from a walkabout point of view?
    The 24-70mm F2.8 is an obvious choice. However 70mm at the long end seems lacking.
    The 17-55mm F2.8 worsens this problem, but may be a dreamboat when it comes to sweeping landscapes. Does anyone have experience with this lens on a full-frame body?
    Thanks,
    Cal
     
  2. the only wide to normal zoom lens I can afford...OR want to carry..hehe, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8...it stays on most of the time, next is the 70-300VR, last are specific use prime lenses, mf or af depending on what they are...on rare occasion is an 80-200mm afd Nikon f2.8...10 yrs ago, it would have been used much more but now only for sports stuff. I use the kit mostly for travel or walkabout..sorry can't comment about the 17-55mm don't own one anymore...
     
  3. 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".
    On weekends walkabout, like you, 24-70 is the obvious choice, but I am thinking I may need 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 because I sometimes don't want to carry 70-200, or even 70-300. 105mm is a great lense, but a bit too long for (relatively) many-purpose carry walkabout lense, to me.
    I am looking forward to the advices in this thread, too.
     
  4. Currently my D700 has a 50mm f1.8 AIS mounted. Saturday morning I will mount the Nikkor 500mm f4 P. In June I will go to Arizona with a 20mm, 28mm, 50mm and 75-150mm zomm or 105mm all AIS. At a July event I will have a 28-105 or 180mm AF-D to use. It all depends on what I am shooting.
     
  5. Donald, why did you lose the 17-55mm?
     
  6. My D700 has the 24-70mm, f/2.8 on it 90% of the time. It's a great lens for general "walking about" activities. For wide angle, I have the 14-24mm, f/2.8 and my only telephoto is the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6VR. I keep my 50mm f/1.4 for sentimental reasons, I guess, because it's seldom used.
     
  7. Absolutely I used my Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4 zoom lens on my D700 the majority of the time. I like to shoot wide, and the 35mm focal length worked well for me too. The Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D was also a common lens I used, and the Nikon 105mm f2.5 as well. I wanted a normal zoom, and was considering the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 before I decided to sell the D700 and go back to the DX format in a new $599 D200. I now use that and the Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom.
     
  8. Sigma 15-30, but normally it is a Tamron 28-75 and this couple was meant as a temp solution, but I'm so satified that they will stay there much longer. The first to replace will be the Sigma and it will be a Sigma 12-24. Another much used lens is the 70-200 VR and for special things I have a 80-400 VR, but I don't use it that much.
     
  9. jvf

    jvf

    90% of the time i use 24-70 2,8. also use 14-24 and seldom the 70-200. After havnig got the batteri pack mb-d10 there is a better balance carrying it arround.
     
  10. The 17-55 is a DX lens, I hope he was referring to the 17-35 lens.
    As a full-time news photog, I carry an old 20-35 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR and a handful of primes.
     
  11. Gary, do you ever find the 24-70mm too short? At the long end it translates to about what a 47mm lens would see on a cropped sensor. This concerns me.
     
  12. Same question to you, Jens.
     
  13. Too short for what?
    I can never understand that line of reasoning....
    For years and years pros have used the 24(or 28) - 70 as the standard Normal zoom but now in the age of DX 18-105, 18-135, and 18-200 everyone that is moving from DX to FX thinks 70 is too short...
    The answer is you bought a professional tool and it needs professional tools to be used to it's maximum ability. you would not carve turkey with a swiss army knife or nail railroad ties with a tack hammer...
    Get the right tool for the job. make decisions as a photographer. You are creating images.
    Rant over...apologies
     
  14. Nic, sorry for the confusion. My confusion. I had believed the 17-55mm to be FX purely because of its pro-level build quality.
     
  15. 35/2
    50/1.4
    85/1.4
    105/2.8 Micro
    Personally, I like to keep the weight light, therefore I prefer the small primes.
    I had the 24-70/2.8 which is a fantastic lens, but because of its size and weight coupled with the already heavy D700, it did not work for me as a walk-around combo.
    So I would "glue" the 50/1.4 to the camera and keep the 35/2 and the 105 in the bag. The 85/1.4 stays home for indoor low light portraits.
    These are just my thoughts.
    Miklos
     
  16. At this moment my Micro Nikkor 70-180 is on the D700.
    Tomorrow, April 30, my country, Netherlands, celebrates the birthday of the queens mum. I will go to a city and take pictures of people that try to sell whatever you can think of, and celebrating with our national drink .... lots of beer, ....
    For this i will bring my 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Perhaps will bring the 17-35, to check if there is a lot of difference between the two wide angle zooms .... My guess is that i will use the 24-70 and 70-200 most of the time .....
     
  17. It is kind of interesting that folks actually sell their D700 to return to a D200 with the 16-85mm lens. Seems Nikon after many tries has created a dream team. Or is it just because the 24-120mm full-frame zoom is so mediocre?
     
  18. More often than not, my D700 has my 24-70 f2.8 attached. If I switch glass, it's the 24-120 VR version. I like them both...
    though I must admit my fondness for the longer-but-slower lens...
     
  19. No, JC, that was quite a good rant.
    You're correct. I'm anticipating a future move from DX to FX and, being accustomed to a 16-85mm range on a cropped sensor, can't help but think how short 70 full-frame mm would be, in spite of quality.
     
  20. Right now, i have a 500mm F4 AF-I mounted up on it. Going to shoot some Lacrosse this evening with it. On my other one, I have a VR 70-200 on it. THis is my lacrosse kit.
    As far as the other questions, i love my 28-70 f2.8 AF-S and my 17-35 AF-S on the 700 also.
     
  21. Hands-down, the 24-70. To lighten the load and have some fun, the AF 50 f/1.4D.
     
  22. For walk about, mine is the 50mm f1.8 AIS. I hardly use anything else.
    My d700 spends most of it's time on a tripod though with 85mm f/1.4 or 105mm f/2.5 shooting landscapes with 8-12 frames to be stitched.
     
  23. With my D700 I use AF-D 28-105/3.5-4.5 or 2-4 of these primes:
    AIS: 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2, 55/2.8 micro, 200/4
    AF: 50/1.8D, Tamron 90/2.8 macro Di
     
  24. Currently, I enjoy walking around with a 35/1.4 AIS on my D700 -- great quality and reasonable size...
    Otherwise, my favorite lens for this body is my 105 DC.
     
  25. John Hubbard, that sounds like a low light delight!
     
  26. Right now - the 21mm Distagon ZF. What an amazing lens.
     
  27. 35/1.4 AIS is almost always on this past month.
     
  28. 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.
     
  29. Is the 35mm F1.4 an uncommon Nikkor model? It's not listed by my favorite local retailers.
     
  30. No lens just a microscope :)
     
  31. 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.
    I use three primes mostly on my D700's
    35 f.2D, 50 1.4D, and 85 1.4D
    My most used zooms right now are: 17-35 f2.8AFS, 28-70 f2.8AFS, and 70-200 2.8VR G
     
  32. 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....
    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!
    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?
     
  33. Words of wisdom, Gary.
     
  34. 24-70, and I rarely feel it's too short.
     
  35. @ 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....
     
  36. My "by default" lens is a 50mm prime. Currently, the AFS version. Sometimes is too long to my liking.
     
  37. 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
    JC
     
  38. 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.
     
  39. 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.
    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.
    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.
    georg
     
  40. Wow. The 35mm F1.4 must be so top drawer that its advantages outweigh the constant need to focus manually.
     
  41. 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.
    At night I fell back to a sigma 24-70 f/2.8, and it performed great.
    00TD8w-129729584.jpg
     
  42. JC, at the risk of going off-topic, what are your first-hand impressions on the Mark II vs. the D700?
     
  43. 90% of the time the 85 f1.4 is on the camera with the 35 f2 in a pocket
     
  44. bmm

    bmm

    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.
    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.
    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!
     
  45. 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".​
    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:
    (1) Good for "casual macro", for portraits, and as a short zoom.
    (2) Razor-sharp
    (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.
    [​IMG]
    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!
     
  46. 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.
     
  47. 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.
    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.
     
  48. Bernard, I'm in love with the 85mm F1.4 too.
    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?
     
  49. At the minute, there's a 135mm f2.8 series E lens on my D700.
     
  50. Tom, I'm in agreement with you. Speed is king.
    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?
     
  51. Justin, I think I have the similar tendency and in assuming so I agree with you. One thing, among other things, I seek in photography is "detail" and I tend to get close, even more so than many here. 105/2.8 macro VR is a wonderful lense for the job. Being able to use teleconvertor with it is the bonus.
    But, I also like landscape as well as portrait in the street or events. So, I like my 17-35, and aiming for 85/1.4 or 1.8 next. 24-70 is, maybe compromise, still great lense to carry around, too.
    Calvin, sorry for diversion from you intended question.
    Ken
    00TDHJ-129805784.jpg
     
  52. Amazing shot at ISO 6400, Ken.
    Did you use Noise Reduction on your D700, or do any post-processing?
     
  53. Calvin, yes, I did. I did also process with NX2, using mostly quick fix (level and tone-curve) to make it blacker and to add more contrast. Maybe a bit overdone but it became interesting - like a CG :)
    I also use circular polarizer to ease the light reflection on the glass.
     
  54. Nothing which wasn't mentioned so far: It's the 35mm/f1.4 or the 50mm/f1.4 most of the time.
    I recently tested the 35mm/f2 AiS , which also seems to give decent results, at least stopped down.

    I wasn't so happy with the AF-50mm/f1.8 on my D700, IMO it delivers better results on the D70s and S5 in terms of color rendition.

    And of course, not to forget, the 85mm/f1.4 makes the D700 really shine (or vice versa)
    Until now, I did not test the combination 180mm/f2.8 + D700. Anbody can comment on respective results?
     
  55. Toby,

    Don't worry.

    Most of the time I use the 17-35mm - just that literally right now (then!) it happened to be the 21mm Distagon.
     
  56. Leigh mentioned above, the really nice 28-200mm G lens. This is the lens I find the best for a walkabout with the D700. It's a great little lens, small light and good quality. When on the D700, the combination is light, easy on the wrist and very versatile. I put a 50mmf1.8 in my pocket if I want to have something with me for low light.
     
  57. I have the 28-70/f3.5-4.5D-AF Nikkor on my D700 most of the time. The 60 Micro gets a fair bit of use in the studio too.
     
  58. For me It's my 50mm AFS G. After that it's my 14-24.
    I'm undecided as what to get next, either the 24-70 or an 85mm f1.4. I doupbt that I'd need anything longer on my D700 than an 85mm lens.
    Mike
     
  59. I use 24-85 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 with D700, 24-85 is quite a good alternative for walkabout (with it's price also) now i'm aiming a 17-35 and 14mm.
     
  60. I shoot with a a D300 and a D700 and have a 17-35, 70-200 and 200-400. I always keep the 200-400 on the D300 and the wider lenses on the D700. If the light gets low and I need reach, I put the 200-400 on the D700 because of the great high ISO performance.
     
  61. jvf

    jvf

    calvin.
    Never found 70 mm to 'short', I too was i Venice lately, almost 1000 pcs in 6 days 99% with my 24-70.
    Here is one:
    00TDTR-129927584.jpg
     
  62. Jens, that does it. If I ever go to Venice, I'll have to bring a mighty 24-70mm with me.
     
  63. Calvin - sorry for the delay in response, lost the 17-55, actually traded it after I switched from D200 to 5d for awhile, but also too big, heavy, was no better then a Tamron 17-50mm I had for a Canon 20D[remember I shoot mostly landscape/travel and almost never need f2.8]. Thought I had settled on Canon for awhile, but alas came back to Nikon. Don't know that I would have bought another 17-55 either way, as my intention was to go lighter and FX which is what I have done....fwiw...
     
  64. I have used the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF-D on my D700. The AF is faster and less hunting than on my D200. I liked the shoots using this lens, all action so far.
     
  65. 50mm f1.8 af (non d) 90% of the time.
     
  66. Thanks, Donald.
    What brought you back? For me, from what I've seen of Canon and Zeiss, I have to place Nikon a close third in terms of image quality. However Nikon trumps all when it comes to ergonomics, hardware looks, and ease and convenience of use.
     
  67. 50% 85/1.4, 25% 50/1.4, 20% 180/2.8, 5% 35/2.0
     
  68. I am in Amsterdam today with a rented 24-70.
    Still trying to decide whether to buy, so trip to Holland and Belgium seemed a good excuse to test drive one.
    Used it yesterday with the grip, an attachment I find mandatory with big lenses, particularly shooting verticals. After walking 6 hours with this combo I found it awfully heavy and attention getting. Many looked at it/me warily.
    Several people approached to discuss it and/or to ask how I liked it compared to _____________. Of course, it IS the Queen's Birthday today so many, many of these people were and, I am confident, still are drunk.
    Anyway, today, the actual Q's BD, I've been using the 50mm 1.8 without the grip...even drunker (!) companions (all one million of them) but a better experience. "Normal" size body and "normal" size lens like lots of other folks.
    Late this afternoon and this evening I'll be using a Panasonic LX3 point and shoot with a similar (24-60 equiv) zoom range to the Nikon. Less vulnerable to pickpockets and I won't look like "a real photographer."
     
  69. I mainly use a CZ Planar 50mm 1.4 ZF on my D700. Quite heavy enough so far as I am concerned but not over conspicuous. I can crop and enlarge quite small sections to at least 12 in x 8 ins and get perfectly acceptable results without special interpolation software so I see no need to have a heavy zoom that goes to only 70mm. If I needed a 300mm tele, however, that would not be replaced by cropping, but that does not arise for me. Of course one cannot get more into the frame if there is no room to move back, so I sometimes carry a 28mm 2.8 AIS in my pocket but rarely use it since I am not keen on obvious wide angle effects. The standard 50mm focal length is just fine most of the time for street scenes, people, etc.
     
  70. I use my Rodenstock 11-560 f/1.4 ED AFS VR Micro lens all the time, but why would it matter to you? You're not going to see the world the same way that I do, so why try to mimic my lens choices? Go through your photos, pick out your favorites, and figure out what focal lengths you use to get your most effective shots. That will tell you what you need to carry.
     
  71. Tomorrow, April 30, my country, Netherlands, celebrates the birthday of the queens mum. I will go to a city and take pictures of people that try to sell whatever you can think of, and celebrating with our national drink .... lots of beer, ....​
    Mike, I hope you're ok! I'm sorry about the terrible tragedy.
    Ofer
     
  72. To the minute, I have the Micro 105/2.8 AI and a 25mm extension tube on it.
    Else then, mostly 17-35 AF-S or the 80-200 AF-D 2.8. the mid-range: 28-105 AF-D 3.5-4,5 or AF-D 50/1.4 in case there ever is not enough light (which ist rarely the case with the D700), or I need less DOF.
    00TE0F-130281784.jpg
     
  73. Yesterday, before hearing about the big tragedy in the Netherlands during the celebration of queensday, i was walking around in the city of Utrecht, taking pictures of people celebrating the 100st birthday of our former queen Juliana. During this day i have used the D700 with 24-70.
    I like to share 2 pictures with the people here that had questions on the performance of this lens.
    I am very happy with the lens quality.
    00TE0a-130283584.jpg
     
  74. The second picture i would like to share is a close-up of her eyes, just taken at 100% from the original file
    00TE0d-130283684.jpg
     
  75. Calvin - I came back to Nikon due to mechanical issues I have had with Canon bodies. Mostly as this relates to focus issues. Yes, the newer cameras have manual focus adjustment to "fine tune" the auto focus, but this in my opinion is BS. From D70 on, I never had issues with any Nikon bodies and lenses. I refuse to believe this is just the way it has to be. If one has not had any such issues consider yourself lucky. I went through 3 5D bodies until I found one that was worth the money, and by then a D300 was for better both in performance and spec. I can honestly say that I gave Canon a "fair shake". In the end I don't want to worry about getting the shot, or having to fine tune each lens that does not perform right. For example, the first 5D with mirror locked up, on tripod, with a 50mm macro ef, my sharpest lens at the time gave images that were not usable at all above 8x10 print, and even that was not great. Dealer I bought it from thought it was all fine, "who needs to do more than 8x10 these days..." I won't comment on that nonsense, but suffice it to say, I had no such issues with Nikon.
    AS for image quality, all I can say there are lots of Nikon shooters and myself who would disagree with your assesment on your ratings, but beauty and image quality is in the eye of the beholder, and suffice it to say, for my prints starting at 14x21 or larger, I have no complaints with Nikon, but ymmv. I would also put forth that it depends on what you shoot. I have seen many images of very sharp, wide latitude images online from all makes and unfortunately all though I demand optimum sharpness, when and if needed not all images require Zeiss/Leica sharpness. I would also argue that having such lenses does not guarantee beautiful imagery. There are more things that contribute to such images than the brand of equipment one uses and line pairs per mm or MTF. Gear helps one do a job, and as you mention, ergonomics assist in this. Having things like mirror lockup, self timers buried in menus is not a help and not hard to redesign into a new camera, but I have become more and more frustrated by this with the C brand.
    Sorry for the long winded response....
     
  76. Calvin - I came back to Nikon due to mechanical issues I have had with Canon bodies. Mostly as this relates to focus issues. Yes, the newer cameras have manual focus adjustment to "fine tune" the auto focus, but this in my opinion is BS. From D70 on, I never had issues with any Nikon bodies and lenses. I refuse to believe this is just the way it has to be. If one has not had any such issues consider yourself lucky. I went through 3 5D bodies until I found one that was worth the money, and by then a D300 was for better both in performance and spec. I can honestly say that I gave Canon a "fair shake". In the end I don't want to worry about getting the shot, or having to fine tune each lens that does not perform right. For example, the first 5D with mirror locked up, on tripod, with a 50mm macro ef, my sharpest lens at the time gave images that were not usable at all above 8x10 print, and even that was not great. Dealer I bought it from thought it was all fine, "who needs to do more than 8x10 these days..." I won't comment on that nonsense, but suffice it to say, I had no such issues with Nikon.
    AS for image quality, all I can say there are lots of Nikon shooters and myself who would disagree with your assesment on your ratings, but beauty and image quality is in the eye of the beholder, and suffice it to say, for my prints starting at 14x21 or larger, I have no complaints with Nikon, but ymmv. I would also put forth that it depends on what you shoot. I have seen many images of very sharp, wide latitude images online from all makes and unfortunately all though I demand optimum sharpness, when and if needed not all images require Zeiss/Leica sharpness. I would also argue that having such lenses does not guarantee beautiful imagery. There are more things that contribute to such images than the brand of equipment one uses and line pairs per mm or MTF. Gear helps one do a job, and as you mention, ergonomics assist in this. Having things like mirror lockup, self timers buried in menus is not a help and not hard to redesign into a new camera, but I have become more and more frustrated by this with the C brand.
    Sorry for the long winded response....
     
  77. The 24-70 is probably your best bet for range versus image quality. I wish Nikon would come out with a lens comparible to Canon's 24-105 f4L IS. Nikon really needs to come out with a line of lenses that is comparible to the f4L Canon line.
     
  78. Thanks for the insight into your experiences, Donald.
    My mentors are Canon shooters and they do not deny your assertions regarding focus problems.
     
  79. My D700 has the 35mm/f2 attached. Here's a link to a shot I took at an historical re-enactment of Tudor England at Kentwell Hall in Suffolk at Easter. I used a bit of fill-in flash as the light was very directional in the old hall:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rushfan2112/3488601550/
    (I couldn't work out how to insert the photo here - sorry, I'm a bit of a 'Luddite' when it comes to technology).
    I also have the 24mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.8, 85mm/f1.8 and 70-300mm VR.
     
  80. Right now I have the Tamron 28-75 on.
    33% as good as the 24-70 at 25% of the price. :)
     
  81. You can make the argument that the 24-70 is a bit short in the long end. I would be happy to see a 35-105/2.8 or 28-105/2.8 but they might be larger and heavier than the 24-70, not sure. For a time, 35-105 zooms were popular (while the f/2.8 standard zoom had a meager 35-70 range), but then in the 90s the trend was towards shorter focal lengths in the standard zoom. 28-70 f/3.5-4.5, 28-105/3.5-4.5, 24-85/2.8-4, 28-70/2.8, and then the current 24-70 f/2.8. I am not sure why this happened; one reason could be that people wanted wide in their standard zooms and didn't care so much about the tele end, but I suspect that the trend really started with the smaller than 35mm sensors (DX). There was immediate need for wider focal lenghts and before Nikon actually started to make DX only zoom lenses, they started by shifting the focal length ranges of the 35mm format zooms towards shorter FLs. Today we have FX cameras and I would like Nikon to start considering adding a nice head shot focal length into their standard lenses, e.g. a 28-105 would be very nice in a modern, fast, AF-S design. I would be happy with f/3.5 in the long end if f/2.8 is infeasible. Canon makes a 24-105/4 L but looking at photozone's review, it isn't all that hot optically.
    One thing that is great about the 24-70 is that it's wide enough for all my people photography needs. So when I use the 24-70 I don't really need a separate wide zoom. I do have an 18mm prime but to be honest I got it more for use with DX than FX. I do frequently run into situations where I would like the 70mm to be 105mm, but it is critical that the quality is maintained, and the -105mm zooms that Nikon has made are typically at their worst at 105mm. Te 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S is very sharp at 85mm but it has a lot of barrel distortion and some softness at 24mm. The 28-105 was the other way around, the 28mm end was sharp and with little distortion but it was mushy and had vignetting at 105mm. It seems that there is considerable penalty from having a wide zoom range.
    The 24-70mm is on my D700 right now.
     
  82. At least one photographer I saw at Yankee Stadium today had a 400/4.8 Nikkor on his D700.
     
  83. Thanks for the historical perspective, Ilkka.
     
  84. Walkabout for me on FX (I have a D3, not a D700, but I assume I can still answer) is a Voigtlander Ultron 40/2. Sometimes it's too short at the long end, sometimes it's not wide-enough at the short end, and the auto-focus is abysmal, but I've managed to take photographs nonetheless.
    OK, for the record when I need it, I do have the option of a D300 with 18-70 or 18-200... I've got nothing against zooms (and have FX zooms too, 17-35, 28-70, 80-200,etc)... I just don't gravitate to them as default lenses.
    j
     
  85. At the moment I have my Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX mounted. Works great for Fast pitch softball.
    Most of the time I have the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S D mounted, it's my general purpose lens.
    If I want to go light weight, I use the 50 f/1.8
     
  86. Whatever was required as last shot . . . I do mean whatever as GLASS RULES the potential of the end result - second only to the soul of the photograapher.
     
  87. I have just the 2 lenses for my D700 - the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-300mm VR. The 70-300mm is on most of the time with the 50mm for town use. My walkabouts are mostly in the countryside!
    Having upgraded from a D70 with 18-200mm VR, I am missing the wider angle view but I decided that it was a better compromise for me to upgrade the camera and buy these 2 lenses rather than upgrade to D300 and gradually build up my lens collection.
    I am very happy wiith the results from both lenses which were used extensively on a recent trip to Hong Kong and New Zealand. It did however highlight the lack of a real wide angle option. I really want the 17-35mm but it is not financially possible at the moment.
    Any views on the primes (20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f/2) or any stop gap alternative. I did see that Ken Rockwell likes the very cheap 28-80mm zoom but am not at all sure about it.
    Keith
     
  88. Keith
    In my opinion, one of the prime reasons to go for the D700 over the DX cameras is wide angle. I can't imagine not having one... and by wide angle I really mean something at 20mm or less.... so that knocks out the 24, 28 and 35mm you are considering. Its not that they are not good lenses... but with 50mm being your widest lens, you really need to jump down low. As a stop gap I would suggest picking up a used AF 20-35mm 2.8. By the way, I also just returned from a vacation in NZ... did you climb MOUNT DOOM?? What a beautiful photo op! By the way, I use the 14mm 2.8 and the 20-35 2.8 regularly... as well as the 50 f1.4 and the 70-300 VR2.
    Doug
     
  89. The 24-70 is on my D700 90% of the time. I also have a D300 which has the 70-200 mounted on it most of the time. When I am out for a shoot, I will carry both cameras. I worry less about dust, and there are the other obvious benifits.
    But honestly when I want to travel light, I prefer the D300 and the 18-200.
    And always the SB-800. I am still learning about this wonderful flash. I have had a lot of fun with the wireless remote feature.
     
  90. I have my 70-200 2.8 VR which I use must of the time. I am also loving my Sigma 105 2.8 macro. These are my favorite lenses. I also use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Nikon 50 1.8, all of the lenses are very sharp and work well for me.
    Frank
     

Share This Page

1111