Ideal wide angle for D300 and D700.

[edwin_mendoza]

I have recently purchased a D700 and wish to get a wide angle that can satisfy both bodies. I currently own a 17-55 f/2.8 (DX) and a

Tokina 12-24 (DX) used on D300.

 

My options are A)17-35 f/2.8 which would give me the wide angle on both bodies but take away on long side vs 17-55 f/2.8.

B) 24-70 f/2.8 this would kill the wide angle on the d300 because of crop factor.

 

Please advise your opinions, I am thinking of trading in the 17 - 55 f/2.8 and Tokina 12 -24 f/4 for 17-35 f/2.8 or 24-70f/2.8.

 

Your advise and help are appreciated.

[scott_pogorelc]

The Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 will give you super wide on the D700 and very wide on the D300. And it's a bargain at only $1500.0 ;)

[lightsmith1]

If you bought the D700 to gain the full frame advantage you are not really gaining anything with a 24mm or wider lens that you do not already have with the 17-55mm f.28 that you already own.

 

The D700 comes into its own with the 14-24mm f2.8 lens. Anything else and you might as well stick with what you already have.

[nolan_ross]

Keep the Tokina for a great wide angle on the D300 and buy the 24-70 f2.8..which will be great on both camera's.

[edwin_mendoza]

Gentlemen thanks for the quick answers.

Scott, I will heck this lens put today.

Bruce, the 17-55 is a DX lens so I loose in full frame. I will look at 12-24 today.

Nolan, I will try your recomendation as well.

[ShunCheung]

Just to point out the obvious: DX and FX are very different formats so that there is no such thing as an ideal wide angle that will work on both. Your best choice is to have separate wide angles for each format.

[edwin_mendoza]

Shun,

What about 17-35 mm f/2.8? Would this be a good choice?

[niccoury]

Maybe keep the 17-55 and get a 14 f/2.8 D for like $900 on the used market. It's a good deal.

[mars790]

As Bruce says, the 14-24mm is what you need. It's as good as advertised. The 14-24mm on FX far surpasses any wide

angle on DX. Since you invested in the D700 and you're inquiring about wide angle - get the most out of it.

 

I used it on my D300 for 5 months before the D700 arrived and it's a pleasure on that cam. It was wide enough for 95%

of the time - and i need wide. Of course i still got the D700 for when i need full frame but I'll certainly use it on the D300

for certain situations that don't call for crazy wide.

 

To give you an idea of the 14-24mm on the D300, view the first 17 images of this folder. The pair did very well in this

small condo...

http://ricmarderimagery.com/p1032711940

 

I would sell your Tokina (i just sold my D200 and Tokina 12-24 - sadly) but keep your 17-55mm for now, if you can afford

to.

 

You have a great combo waiting. The 14-24mm on the D700 and your 17-55mm on DX is roughly the coverage of 26-

82mm. Eventually, you'll probably get the 24-70 and some 1.4 primes but in due time. Only you can decide what focal

lengths are the most important to you.

 

.

[edwin_mendoza]

Nic, thanks for the input of the 14 f 2.8

Ric, it is good to hear from someone that has the 2 bodies I do.

 

My inventory also includes:

Sigma 30mm f /1.4

Nikon 50mm f /1.4

Nikon 85mm f / 1.4

Nikon 70 - 200 f / 2.8 vr

Nikon 18 - 200 VR

Nikon 300mm AF-I f/2.8

[edwin_mendoza]

Ric, great images!! What was your white balance set to?

[walterh]

Edwin unless you have a very specific reason to use one wide angle lens on both bodies this does not make any

sense. As Shun pointed out and as you know there is a 1.5 crop factor between DX and FX. So any very wide lens on

FX will be a moderate wide angle on DX.

 

If you go for the 14-24 on the FX body I would be surprised if you use that lens ever again on the DX body. You

might look into the possibility to use wide angle lenses primarily on the FX body and to use the DX body with

your 17-55. This lens is spectacular on the DX format and unless you get an exceptional price for it when selling

I would stick with it.

 

One major advantage of the DX size is the use with optically excellent tele lenses that can make use of the high

pixel density. So one good combination might be a 70-200 f2.8 VR Nikkor on the D300 and the 14-24 and 24-70 on

the FX body. You get the best from both worlds. On occasion you can also use the 70-200 VR on the FX body if you

need the better low ISO performance.In these cases you could put the 17-55 back onto the D300. In the same low

light the wider lens may give you enough room in exposure time on the D300.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would highly recommend <i>not</i> getting the 14mm prime. IMO it's <i>the</i> worst performing wide angle on DX.

[mars790]

Edwin, by your lens collection, you obviously have a taste for the best. The 14-24mm is a must have for you.

 

We have a similar line-up. I also have the 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 70-200 along with the 10.5, 17-35 and the 105 2.8. It's going to

be fun to try different combinations with the 2 cameras.

 

I set my white balance to Auto with 2 clicks to the left and one down on the grid (B2 and M1). But i always correct color in

post.

[edwin_mendoza]

Walter, Thanks for the combination ideas. When I travelled with 2 DX bodies, my ideal combination of lenses and weight

was 17-55 f2.8 on one body and 85mm f 1.4 on the second body. I changed from 70-200 f2.8 to 85 f 1.4 for travel because

of weight and mobility specially in hot places like Thailand. When Lazy, I just put the 18-200 vr on my D300.

 

Ilkka, Thank you, I will not buy that lens.

 

Ric, I did like the 12-24 f 2.8, I am evaluating weight and price. It is a big boy but beautiful.

[carl_becker2]

IMHO the DX format is better served with teles and the FX format is better served with wide to normal focal lengths. I don't think there is a good wide angle for both formats. I would look at the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 for the ability to use filters with the D700. If I needed wide for a DX I would look at one the zooms made by Nikon, Tokina or Sigma. Personally I have and like the Tokina 11-16.

[ShunCheung]

Edwin, I have had the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S since 2001. When I got into DX digital, I added the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX. To this day I still have both lenses. You can look forever and there will never be a wide angle that works in the same fashion on both FX and DX.

 

For example, you can compromise with the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S which is an extreme wide angle on FX. It'll meet the need of a few who specialize in super wides, probably for indoor work. On DX, it is a moderate wide that has a very limited range. One way or another, you'll need additional lenses to suppliment it.

 

When you shoot different formats, buy separate wide angles.

[edwin_mendoza]

Carl, Thanks for the reply , I am close to choosing on 2 lenses and tokina is highly recomended as a wide DX.

 

Shun, Thanks again for info, understood on DX and FX. A question to you would be : If you had to choose only one lens

between 17-35/f2.8 and 17-55 /f2.8 DX while having the D700 and D300, which would you choose?

[ShunCheung]

Edwin, sorry I don't answer those hypothetical questions about what if I can only have one lens.

The primary reason to use SLRs is to have various interchangable lenses.

Therefore, I would never limit myself to an inadequate selection of lenses.

 

To this day I still don't own an FX body, but if I shoot both formats, which I'll probably do soon, I'll bring lenses that fit

FX and an additional 1 or 2 lenses for DX. That was what I did when I used both the D100 and 35mm film bodies. For

example, a 12-24mm/f4 DX should take care of most of your DX wide-angle needs. That in fact was the very first DX

lens I bought. That is a relatively small lens such that I don't see why it would be a problem carrying it around.

Tokina also has a 12-24mm/f4, a 11-16mm/f2.8 and Sigma has a 10-20mm as alternatives.

 

Again, I would suggest quit trying to find one wide-angle lens that fits both. No such lens exists. Other solutions will

involve serious compromises.

[dan_brown4]

17-35/2.8 seems like the best alternative.

[edwin_mendoza]

Shun, I also have SLR's for the same reason, my limit is an inadequate amount of CASH. The Tokina is a good option and

I own it, so I will stick with it. Thanks again my friend.

 

Dan, I think I will add your opinion and Shun's by keeping the Tokina and adding the 17-35/f2.8 to my collection. Thanks.

[carl_becker2]

Maybe a wide prime or two like a 20, 24 or 28 would do you until you save up.

[joe_a2]

The 17-35mm f/2.8 gets another vote from me.

 

Show of hands, please... How many people EVER shot wider than 17mm on your F2, FE, FM2, F3, N90, F100, F5,

etc? All of a sudden 14mm is a "must have", even when it is a big, HEAVY, filterless choice. Humans are funny

animals.

[edwin_mendoza]

Carl and Joe thanks. It seems that the 17-35 f/2.8 is the winner.

[ShunCheung]

The 17-35mm/f2.8 is wonderful for FX, but it is not quite wide enough for DX. That was why the first DX lens I bought

was the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S.

<P>

I wouldn't say the 14-24mm is a must have. In fact I usually encourage people to get the 17-35 over the 14-24, but for

those of us who are well covered in various focal lengths already, it is a good addition for certain interior shots.

I got the 10.5mm fisheye for similar reasons. For example, 14mm on D3:

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7018413-md.jpg">

</CENTER>