Good superwide zoom for D700?

[jwhite3.0]

Peter made excellent points and I re-read the original post. I actually thought Bruce had the camera already. Let's forget the wide-angle lens for a second. He wants a D700 + 50mm f/1.4 combination. Is there anything wrong with that esp. as a hobbyist? One lens one camera and throw in a couple lens down the road.

 

There are advantages to a D700 over a D300 and vice versa so we'll assume the OP has done a thorough investigation. Now throw the wide-angle lens into the mix. He doesn't have a lot of money for anything else after this purchase and while most of us want more than two lenses but if the normal perspective is his bread and butter I think that's ok.

 

Bruce, I'm just a just a hobbyist but people like Shun and Peter as well as other have much more experience and deserve a lot of respect here. Shun and others have built the Nikon to what it is so while their advice may be more blunt there is no intent of being mean or misleading. These are people that probably can afford the best of the best but choose their tools wisely. I've been only a member for 3 years but I know Shun offers great advice to the community.

 

Opinions are just opinions, I personally like the D700 + 50mm f/1.4 combo but many would not sacrifice other focal lengths at the expense of a body. I think it's fine but if your goal is wide angle photography then you can accomplish a lot with the DX format and ultra wide angle for a lot less in cost.

[squareformat]

Peter,

 

There is a perfectly good reason why I'll be buying a full frame camera but I don't need to share that. I'm an experienced photographer, I know what I need and I've made my decision. I don't need advice on that otherwise I would have asked.

 

Neither do I need advice on whether a D700 or a DX body would be better for me, otherwise I would have asked. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

 

What I do need advice about - and sincere thanks to those who got this simple request and chimed in with some great comments - is whether there are any superwide zooms that would provide good quality results. That's why I asked.

 

Take a look at the post title: Good superwide zoom for D700? Anyone reading this in four years time will presumably be looking for on-topic information. You and Shun are about the only two contributors who have so far failed to offer anything that might be of value to a future reader. The only thing they'll get from you is your off-topic opinion.

 

Oh, and I liked this, "Pardon me for saying it, but it's almost like you're saying "I've made a not-so-wise decision and I don't want anybody to tell me why it's not-so-wise, just tell me how to use some mediocre product to make my foolish decision make sense." I don't want to oversimplify it, so please don't be insulted, but this is a major purchase and big decision, and you should, I think, welcome any perspective that will help you make it wisely, not just the ones you've filtered out for some arbitrary reason."

 

That's a level of arrogance that exceeds Shun's earlier comment. Well done.

[Peter_in_PA]

John White writes "There are advantages to a D700 over a D300 and vice versa so we'll assume the OP has done a thorough

investigation." I've been reading this forum for years, I would never assume that.

 

That said, let's assume Bruce has great reasons for wanting to buy into FX in such a way that by the time he can afford enough

decent glass for it, the camera is worth 500 bucks and he wants the D950 or whatever... (Yes, I recognize this might be

possible.)

 

Then I remember when I bought my first SLR in the early 80s. I had only a 50mm for two years and loved it. I added a 28mm and

with just those two was happy for a couple MORE years. I added a 75-150 and a 200mm lens and I was happy till a couple years

ago when I went digital. So... I agree it's possible. (I sold all that stuff not too long ago... I kinda miss it.)

 

Which is why... I ask again... has our OP REALLY got a compelling reason that he needs FX? I know I don't need it. I worked

with full-frame years ago when Kodak released it's full-frame SLR, and I don't think I really miss anything with DX.

 

How big is Bruce printing, or how is he using his photos? If he's printing 8x10s and only the occasional 11 x 14 or bigger or

cropping only 25 or 30 percent, he will likely see NO difference between a D700 and a D300, except if he buys the D300 he'll have

the money to buy WAY more glass.

 

For 3300 USD, (the cost of a D700 and 50mm f1.4) imagine the DX rig you could build. WAY more toys, and we all know that he

who dies with the MOST toys (not the most expensive ones) wins.

 

;-P

[Peter_in_PA]

Bruce,

 

I didn't want to start a fight. I wasn't being arrogant, at least not meaning to. Just trying to explain why I even bothered giving you

some feedback.

 

You've admittedly given only part of the info we need to really suggest anything to you. "There is a perfectly good reason why I'll be

buying a full frame camera but I don't need to share that." Huh?

 

If you only want opinions that agree with yours, you might find that challenging on a public forum like this.

 

Could you share your reasons for requiring FX? They could be very legitimate, and could actually help with getting good info on

what you're asking. If you hold back that info, I wonder if that serves you best in terms of the relatively major purchase you want to

make.

 

If you insist on FX, I think the suggestions that you buy fixed lenses, btw, to be good. If it were me, I'd look at Bjorn's reviews for

those lenses at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. I LOVED the 20mm f2.8 AF we used to use where I used to work,

although Bjorn only gives it 3 or 4 out of 5 as I recall.

 

For me, I would avoid any current third party ultra-wide full-frame zoom. I've had limited experience with them. I think that Sigma

and Tokina are doing great things with ultrawide DX lenses, but the full-frame stuff looks pretty scary.

[elliot1]

If the D700 works as well as the D3, there is no question that the OP is making the right choice. Since he is

purchasing and expensive body and an expensive lens (after all, he could opt for the less expensive 50mm f1.8),

it sounds to me like he is making a long term investment in his camera gear. Makes sense to me. But the only

person it really needs to make sense to is the OP. I believe there was a time when everyone pretty much used

ONLY 50mm lenses.

 

Also, he didn't say he would NEVER be buying another lens. He said he is building his system slowly. I think he

is quite wise in planning his purchase carefully.

 

I will throw another option - Sigma makes an excellent ultra wide 10-20mm (DX) that will work great on the D700

in DX mode. Not the best choice as you loose FX but it is affordable and an additional option until you buy

exactly what you want.

[mars790]

Wow. I have only read arrogant comments from one person here...

[rjm photo]

When I bought my Nikon F new in the mid sixties, I wanted to buy the best camera I could afford...I knew I could add lenses later. I bought it with the 50mm F2 Nikkor.

 

I used it successfully that first year as a photographer for our college daily newspaper and annual. I couldn't afford to buy additional lenses till the following year.

 

The camera has served me well since then. Granted it didn't become obsolete as quickly as new digital cameras today.....the investment was a smart one.

 

I understand Bruce's line of thinking.

[Matt Laur]

At the risk of greatly (or perhaps <i>further</i>) annoying Bruce, it seems worth revisting one thing that Shun pointed out. The Nikon 50/1.4 appears to have been recently outclassed - considerably - by Sigma's new (uber-gigantic-barreled) <a href="http://www.laurphoto.com/prdr/sigma_50_1-4_hsm" target="_blank"><b>new fast 50</b></a>. If indeed, Bruce, you're looking at the 50 as the main lens that you're intending to be the bread-and-butter workhorse that will be best leveraging that new D700, it might be worth rethinking that particular choice. Yes, it costs more. But it seems to have <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08081802sigma50review.asp" target="_blank"><b>substantially better axial CA performance</b></a>, among other things, to consider.

<br><Br>

Hard to say if the extra $200 is worth it to you for the much quieter AF and the greatly reduced vignetting and CA, but it might be something to put into your calculus, here, since 50 is where all of your high-quality action is going to be for a while.

[stephen_asprey2]

I would like to contribute here. I have been in film since forever and have some nice manual and autofocus Nikkors which I put in front of an F4s and an FM2n. I do candid, portraits and landscapes. For me the issue is similar as I want to move to digital, but to only FX. If I was to invest in some good DX lenses now I would be wasting my money, as FX will be the future of digital. So I am waiting for the price of the D700 to come down to $2k and then I will move and be able to use all my lenses to their full optical capability.

I have fast 80-200/105/85/50/35 and 28mm nikkors...all accumulated at good prices used. I wanted to go super wide for landscapes. I considered the 20mmm primes....and nearly got hold of the pro's favourite, the 20mm F4 AIS. I looked at 20 and 18mm 2.8s and even considered the 15 2.8, and i looked at a 17-35 2.8, but at still over $1500!...no. I looked at splurging on a 14-24AFS...$2k+ :(((. What to do?

I took a punt on Ken Rockwells advice in the end. What I did get was the 18-35 3.5 AF D. $300 used! It's as sharp as I could ever want. In tests its almost as good as the 2.8 and better than the primes. The speed is fine as in landscapes I am at f11 or f16. The best value lens I have even bought, bar none. I works brilliantly on my F4s in auto and on my FM2n in manual focus and its futureproof, as it will also be perfect on the D700 when I can afford it! Now I am happy to be patient and I really am over reading reviews.

[ShunCheung]

For super wides on the FX sensor, I would only use ones with the telecentric design; i.e. ones with light beams

hitting the digital sensor from a vertical angle. A lot of old wide angles originally designed for film use will not perform

well because they could be partically blocked by the "well" design in the digital photosites.

 

When Nikon introduced the D1 back in 1999, they also introduced the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S that has the telecentric

design, so do a lot of recent DX zooms.

 

If you are going to use any wide-angles from the film era on the FX sensor, I would check out the specific

performance tests on FX.

[jim_m5]

Robert<br>

IMHO with digital the considerations are a bit different, for the last 30 years you've been able to take advantage of all the major film advancements without needing to change camera body. I have DSLR bodies several years old now worth only a fraction of their initial cost that cannot and will not ever be upgraded beyond their existing imaging quality...but--I'm still using lenses purchased 20-25 years ago. I think the advice folks are trying to give is buy the good glass now as it will serve him both short AND long term.

[John Crowe]

Have a look at the Tamron 19-35mm f3.5-4.5. Should be some posts here about it.

 

 

Personally, I highly recommend used manual focus Nikon AIS prime lenses. I have had excellent success with "bargain" and "ugly" grade lenses from keh.com

 

 

Full frame cameras excell at wideangle photography so it would be nice to put some very good quality glass on the D700. Not to upset the cart here but have you considered a used Canon 5D for about half the price allowing the purchase of one or two superb lenses. Seems like you do not currently have much in the way of Nikon equipment.

[chris_autio]

Sigma 201306 10-20 f4-5.6 DC EX HSM Nikon Digital Zoom Lens

 

I found this really ideal for wide shots with my d-200. It is great for architecture. With Lens Distortion Filtration in

Photoshop at about -2.5, lines can be corrected. Of course it has to be super level to get the most out of it for architecture.

It is sharp compared to the 18-70 DX piece of junk.

[Two23]

Shun's first post stated my sentiments SO well, I'll just add "dittos." Putting all you cash into a camera and then not having money left over is the classic beginner's mistake. Yes, I made it too when I started out. My current strategy is to first build up my lenses, tripod, and lighting system. ALL of those things are more important than the camera for my image quality. Lenses don't decrease in value very quickly while cameras drop like a rock. I am currently using a D80 but have three top notch pro f2.8 zooms. While I save up and buy the final one--a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, the price of the D700 will continue to drop. By the time I get around to buying one it will likely cost closer to $2,300. The lenses will still be worth about what I paid for them. This is how to save hundreds if not thousands of dollars and maximize image quality. Never forget it's the lens that does the work. At any rate, no way I'd buy an expensive camera and then cripple it. Don't see the point.

 

 

Kent in SD

[rjm photo]

Jim

 

My Nikkor 12-24mm is basically obsolete with regard to the current new technology from Nikon - the FX format.

 

When I bought it 20 months ago mention of FX format was not very loud and clear if at all - nor for the 14-24mm Nikkor. But they are here now....and I wish I had the 14-24mm instead.

 

I paid $919 for my 12-24mm Nikkor, currently it is worth $625 if I'm lucky for a sample in mint condition on Ebay.

 

I don't see camera technology going past the FX format for the near future. The D700 sensor is pretty state-of-the-art and able to give top performance with the best current lenses or 20 year old AIS and AI samples. Many of the older lenses get a "5" rating on FX format camera as tested by one of the members of this forum.

 

If Bruce chooses to buy this camera he can expect to have state-of the art results from this sensor for quite a long time. Does he need FX format with 20 MP sensor - probably not.

 

So why not buy the best sensor - and expect to be able to get top results now and shop for the expensive glass later?

[albinonflickr]

MMmm.. Many good arguments pro/con in above thread already!

 

I am one in support buying the best camera affordable and adding lenses as you go along. Certainly a camera like the D700 that accepts older (like) 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 lenses without complaints! In the film-days things would be slightly different, but this is now.

 

So, no suggestions for a wide angle zoom! The older 20-35 and 17-35 would be the obvious choices, as has been suggested above. The modern 14-24 would be the thing to save up for. I am saving up for a D700, to be used with.. The old primes! And I will try my 12-24 as well.

 

Good luck.

[squareformat]

Kent Staubus, said, " Putting all you cash into a camera and then not having money left over is the classic beginner's mistake."

 

It may be, Kent, but I'm not a beginner. I've been taking photographs for 32 years, I've had stuff hung in international salons (although I haven't won a medal), I've had illustrated articles published in a range of magazines and lots of pics in newspapers, I have friends who are press photographers and can hold my own with them when they're talking photography (of course that's different from talking equipment).

 

I thought I'd better mention that in case other people think the same way as you and that influences their answers. Although why it should be automatically assumed that a person who posts a question to the forum is a beginner is a bit beyond me. Maybe most people are?

[albinonflickr]

Usually, I laugh about people having 'long toes' (as the dutch expression goes - being touchy and sensitive to crtique).

 

In your case, Buce, I completely follow your mild irritation to some of the contributions. Your question would be one I could have asked myself. And I am definately not 'a beginner' either. And - see my post above - I am certainly in favor of being the best camera.. And adding some nowadays very affordable primes. It probably is the 'what affordable zoom should I get' in your question, that set some people off... :-0

 

Interesting thread, this, altogether!

[squareformat]

Albin,

 

I really like the "long toes" expression. I'm going to start using that phrase myself!

[Peter_in_PA]

Bruce writes

 

"Although why it should be automatically assumed that a person who posts a question to the forum is a beginner is a bit beyond me.

Maybe most people are?" In fact, most people who post a question such as yours are indeed beginners. In fact, your original post read

very much like such folks' questions, and it was the reason for my initial response.

 

btw, I visited your site, it's GREAT! I've never been to Paris, but you make me want to go!

 

Bruce is a very good photographer, and an excellent writer. Check it out, everybody. http://photographing-paris.com/

[ilkka_nissila]

I think when it comes to all other lenses except superwides, the FX bodies do very well with most any good glass

that was designed for 35mm film or FX digital sensors. You can find great bargains in lenses from 28mm upwards in

the 2nd hand market. For superwides, there are some issues with most existing lenses with a few exceptions, and

those exceptions happen to be very expensive (at least the Nikon lenses).

<p>

If you are willing to consider primes, the 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikon reportedly works well on FX when stopped down to

mid apertures. The new 18mm Zeiss is getting very good reviews, which suggest that it is approximately on par

with the 14-24mm Nikkor in terms of image quality. It is more expensive though. I think a 2nd hand manual focus

20mm (Ai-S) is probably your best option for the $300 budget. The autofocus 20mm has a reputation for being

somewhat fragile so I would be careful to test it if you get one of those. Mine had alignment issues and

eventually I sold it and got the 25mm ZF.

<p>

In the long run, when you've recovered from the purchase of the body, I would <i>highly</i> recommend the 24mm

PC-E Nikkor for you as you seem to do a lot of architectural photography. I think it's the best lens for the job

and while 24mm is not "superwide" by today's standards, if you consider the extended image circle accessible

using the shift adjustment, it's wider than any rectilinear superwide that I know of. I think it's much more

useful than the 14-24 for this type of work but others really seem to love the zoom. Just something to consider.

<p>

For regular lenses between 20mm and 50mm, the 28mm Ai-S are excellent and the 35mm f/2 Zeiss is ... astonishingly

sharp.

The 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S is very affordable second hand, and even the f/2 is "purchaseable" though not cheap.

[ellis_vener_photography]

What do you intend to use the lens for? if landscapes, buildings and city scapes as opposed to people and action you might consider getting something like a humble yet very good 28mm or 35mm f/2 Nikkor, a nodal panning rig, maybe an L -type QR plate and some stitching software like PTGui.

[squareformat]

Peter,

 

Thanks for the plug for the Paris website but the pics there might be unintentionally misleading from the point of view of this thread as I don't need the D700 for that type of photography. That was a project I did a while back and most of the photographs were taken on a Minolta A2.

[ShunCheung]

I never thought Bruce was a beginner, which is totally irrelivant in this discussion/debate anyway.

 

For those who didn't notice, this is actually Bruce's third thread within two weeks about putting inexpensive lenses onto the D700:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QdPz

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qexl

[joseph_smith3]

Bruce, there have been lots of comments on your post. I am a great believer in answering the questions as posted, but from time I offer advice even when it is not asked for especially if I feel the poster can benefit from it. I have owned Nikon equipment for 40 plus years. I got used to buying only Nikon lenses, as they all were good to excellent and became life long investments for the most part. Most of my Nikon lenses I have bought used. I did not necessarily need the fastest lens, and therefore did not buy it. I went Digital in Dec 2005 with a D 200 and bought a Nikon 18-70mm DX lens. That lens gets the job done so I have found no reason to rush out and buy the f 2.8 version of it or something close to it. Since I do a lot of nature work, my money has gone into good Nikon macro and long tele lenses. My older Nikon lenses from my film days plus the 18-70mm are taking care of me so far, but I keep looking. To each their own. Thanks for posting and tell us more about how you fare with the D 700. Joe Smith