Good superwide zoom for D700?

[wpahnelas]

bruce, good luck with the D700. i doubt you will be disappointed.

 

before i got mine, i read a ilkka nissila post in another thread where he remarked that the nikkor 20mm AF-D was not a great choice for FX -- and that turned out to be correct. so it's true there are some surprises when it comes to wide lenses on FX

 

i'm in a similar position as you, at least as regards zooms. i'm presently using a tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 on my D700. while the corners are darkened at 17mm, otherwise i'm satisfied with it. i'll use it until i decide upon and am ready to go for a high-dollar nikkor.

 

zoom lenses sure are nice, but i'll add my voice to that of the other posters who advocate for the older primes. one can build a pretty formidable kit on a budget, without being maligned for lack of taste or judgement.

[simon_baker2]

Hello Bruce,

 

I have to say that I can see both sides of what is turning into a bit of an argument, and from one "Brit" to another perhaps you would like

to consider my thoughts on your post. Before I go any further with my thoughts I would like you to know that I believe the D700 and

50mm lens will make a fine choice, however Shun and others also make valid suggestions but perhaps are not coming across as so and

therefore seem to be elitist arrogance when I truly believe they do not mean their comments to be so.

 

Now back to my suggestion.....

 

You do not wish to state why you want "FX" over "DX" and thats fine except that it can be difficult to understand the logic without

knowing the reason, so here's my reason for switching from Hasselblad ...... last December I sold my entire Hasselblad H1 system

which included several lenses and a 6 month old Phase One back and bought a D3 along with several quality Nikkors BECAUSE the

D3 was a) more flexible and suited to my photographic needs b) produced quality that I am more than happy with ( the 'blad P1 combo

was really overkill and cost a fortune to insure yet along buy ) c) has amazing high ISO results. If your reason for opting for a D700

over, lets say, a D300 is because you want to shoot at ISO above 6400 and get decent results then OK, other than a D3 which is

another grand there is currently no other choice. However if you do not plan to shoot that high on a regular basis and given your budget I

can see no real advantage over a D300 and perhaps for now you would be wise to consider the following ( even though the D700 is so

tempting ), BTW my budget was not limited otherwise this is definitely what I would have done......

 

1) Don't buy D700 now ..... WAIT, it will fall in price, the lenses are unlikely to. Get a "Mint" second hand D300 from a reputable dealer

( Ffordes, Mifsuds, etc etc ) for around 799 GBP

 

2) Get a 35mm F2 which will give a FOV similar to the 50mm and IMPORTANTLY will still be a very useful lens when you step up to

"FX" so it will not become redundent and is similar cost to the 50mm

 

3) Use the 1000GBP "saved" by buying the used D300 over a new D700 and buy the 14-24mm F2.8 !

 

From what I have read so far you would be happy with a super wide of around 20mm, the 14-24 will give you a 21-36mm on the D300 so

the 20mm FOV will be covered and most importantly will become the stunning 14-24mm when you make the FX switch.

 

Now I know that Shun ( for example ) does not see the logic in using the 14-24mm on a DX body and I would agree if the long term plan

was to stick with DX, but in this case the plan would be to switch to FX in the future so to me in this instance it makes sense.

 

The way to look at my suggestion is this .....

 

By buying a mint s/h D300 you will save about 200GBP on the current new price and when you come to sell ( for FX upgrade ) your

"loss" will be that much smaller than if you had bought new and the D700 will importantly cost you LESS than it will right now plus there

will be a good chance that you will be able to get a mint s/h one for even less again, you win win.

 

The lenses are likely to increase in price, therefore buying that quality super wide zoom now will save you money in the long run and

you get to take advantage of it now ( albeit at a narrower FOV ) . The 14-24 can be bought new in the UK ( official Nikon UK stock ) for

as low as 1050GBP so it would be within budget if bought along with a new 35mm F2 and s/h D300.

 

This is what I would do, FWIW the single most over riding decision for me choosing the D3 over the D300 was the ability to have

"usable" images from ISO above 6400. I often shoot in low light conditions and try to avoid using flash and also like the film-like grain

produced which looks great in black and white ( I loved Tri X pushed to 1600 and beyond ). I would have otherwise bought the D300

without hesitation.

 

Of course, if like me you want results above ISO 6400 then as I have already said you'll have to go for the D700 and I understand your

choice, if not , then " lens now .... FX later " will give you mostly everything else and save you money in the long run ( if I waited until

now before buying the D3 I would have saved 700GBP on its price and in reality it would have been more like 1600GBP as I would have

bought a D700 ! ..... who knows what price reductions will appear on the D700 in the coming months especially if Canon's replacement

for the 5D has more MP and gives it a good run for its money, Nikon might well look to respond with an update within a year and the

D700 will become even better value ).

 

Hope my thoughts are of value

 

Kind regards Simon

 

 

[aaron l]

Get the 18-70 and shoot at f8-f11. It still won't be as good as the 14-24, 17-35 et al, but you'll get in the game and have a very good lens until you can afford to shell out for more.

[mackenzie_froats]

I recently just got the 12-25mm f/4 lens and it was worth every penny.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello all,

 

I think choosing a D 700 is anywayn the right way to go... But why try to get a poor ultra-wide zoom ?

 

There is an even cheaper solution to get quality ultra wides, Nikon is the only manufacturer to offer us with its enlarged retro-compatibility...

 

Most of the time under 35mm (assuming your 35mm allows for a maximum aperture equal or better than f/2) AF is a luxury you can easily dispense with and most of the time an ultra wide will be focused by the depth of field table to allow for maximum effect...

 

The best and cheapest solution is to buy one or two manual prime(s) wide(s) Nikkor F with an Ai or an Ai'ed mount second hand for the price of dust.

 

You'll get a splendid lens, on par with the all the ultra-wide zooms available except the latest high end ones from Nikon, used at its nominal FOV with an efficeint and handy DOF scale engraved on the barrel...

 

Who really needs more ?

 

Don't be fooled by the "AF'ite" and "zoom mania" when it goes to wide angles...

 

FPW

[ilkka_nissila]

Francois, which specific manual focus ultrawide angle primes are you recommending? Some of them are reported to

have problems with FX. Bjorn Rorslett rates the manual focus primes from

15mm to 24mm from 1 to 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5), depending on the lens, whereas he gives the 14-24 a 5 and the

and 17-35 4.5-5. It seems therefore that none of the ultrawide primes are on par with the newer zooms.

 

From 28mm on up I would agree that manual focus primes are a nice option for use with FX.

[andy a.]

How wide do you want to go?

 

Really really wide? I've been using my tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on my D700 and liking it very much. Reports that it covers full-frame at 13mm (Rockwell) however are false. More like 15 minimum. I basically use it as a 16mm f/2.8 prime, and the image quality is better than expected. CA is still very low, and it's overall very sharp. This lens is pretty amazing, especially for the price.

 

When I want something semi-wide, I grab the 24-70 f/2.8. You should probably be saving up for that, as it's just plain outstanding, and for most of my photography, it's the only lens I need. But, as others have pointed out, buy the time you can afford that, the D700 will cost hundreds less.

[ivan_verschoote1]

I'm currently using my old 28-105/3.5-4.5 AFd (next to my 50/1.8) and I'm quite happy with it. (My other lenses are 85/1.8,

70-200VR and 300/4).

When avoiding the widest apertures it is a very fine performer indeed. I think it can easily match the Canon 24-105/4 (no

kidding). I's a discontinued lens that is easily available second-hand.

The D700 is more forgiving towards optics than some people might think. You don't need 2000$ zoom lenses to get great

shots. You need talent and creativity.

It is merely a thing of waiting, Nikon will surely come up with an affordable alternative in the FF-range. 24-105/4 AFS VR

with Nano cristals may'be...

[bmm]

Its funny sometimes to not 'ride' a thread as it evolves, but to read it after a significant number of responses as I have done with this one. Taking a step back, I think that the disagreements above are due to the unusual nature of this question given the person asking.

 

Put another way, to me what is different and curious about this thread - and what may have caused some of the banter - is that the 32 years of Bruce's experience is not reflected in an accumulation of lenses over that period that would normally allow respondents to more easily make suggestions - based on gaps in the line-up, level to which the existing lenses may be compatible with new body options, and the poster's stated needs and objectives. Essentially Bruce is facing a 'beginners' problem (balancing lens and body investments starting from what seems to be a zero-equipment base), but has an extensive experience and credentials.

 

Though not central to this thread, as a newer photographer, I'd be genuinely interested in knowing from Bruce where the equipment he used over those 32 years had gone, and why. Also why Nikon, and the D700, and a fast normal prime was chosen as the place to start again. As a relative beginner and learner, experienced photographers' experiences and histories are fascinating to me - both in terms of their art and their tools.

 

To answer the original question, humbly and after some thought, I'd recommend the 35/2. Not only because it is a lens that I have and like, but because is meets the stated need for something wider than the 50, it is unquestionably FX friendly, and it has a good price/performance ratio. More importantly, in the 35 and 50, Bruce would have a pair of fast good normalish primes which would form the long term core upon which to evolve his lens collection. To me this choice meets his needs and budget, its of good quality, it establishes a foundation for future growth, and it therefore makes sense.

[photo_dark]

20mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL RF = $500

 

Not sure if it works on a full frame, but I think it might be a pretty good option.

[craig_shearman1]

If you're on a budget, stick with Nikon glass but consider the thousands of manual focus Nikkors, both zooms and primes, going to peanuts these days. They're all full frame and generally 2.8 or faster, and tack sharp. Not as convenient as autofocus of course but plenty of us made plenty of great pictures for plenty of years before AF existed.

[ShunCheung]

May I suggest people read the subject, the original post and some of the answers first before making further suggestions?

 

The OP wants a superwide zoom for the D700. On the FX sensor, at least in my book, superwides are 20mm or wider. You may stretch it to 24mm, but a 35mm lens is not a superwide on the D700.

 

The OP wants a zoom. If no zoom meets the price requirement, I think a prime is a reasonable alternative.

 

Finally, in my response on Sept 7 at 8:51pm and Ilkka's response on Sept 10, 5:53am, we pointed out that because of the "well" design with micro-lenses on a digital sensor vs. the flat film, a lot of old wide angles originally designed for film do not work well on DSLRs. They is partly why they cost like peanuts in these days. If one is spending $3K (or whatever Pounds, Euros, etc.) on a D700, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to put a bad lens in front of it to take away most of its adavntages.

[bmm]

Hi Shun,

 

While I strongly agree with your general point about trying to answer the OP's actual question, with respect can I point out that the Bruce defined his requirement as "20-35ish". So a 35mm lens is in fact within the boundaries of his stated request, albeit I agree that it would not be traditionally seen as 'super-wide'.

 

Where I diverged from his request was in not suggesting a zoom, however I tried to justify that on cost for quality grounds and on the 35 and 50 combination creating a starting bag of 2 classic prime lenses upon which a future collection - in whatever direction - could be built.

 

I'm not sure how the current Nikkor 35 and 50mm primes are (or for that matter the current 20, 24 and 28mm primes) in terms of telecentric design / dealing with the pixel wells.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Ilka,

 

As far as I know, the 20mm (all versions) are giving good results on FX sensors (good doesn't mean perfect)... Of course, he won't have either the perfection reached by the costly latest zoom form Nikon or the result (and FOV) he can expect from the latest Zeiss ZF 18mm F/3.5 , but I bet he will have better result than with any lower range super-wide AF zoom from a third party and it will cost him far less.

 

Sorry for the late answer

 

FPW

[marypar4]

Hi Bruce,

First and foremost..I enjoyed your web site and your excellent photo tips. Secondly, it has been my experience that when posting on this site..I have had similiar experiences where folks tend to pontificate about their expertice. It seems to be a trend amoung many..including golfers kayakers, photograghers etc. It can be frustrating to say the least ..particularly for you , as an accomplished photographer. I have learned to restrain myself from blasting the pontificators ..as they mean well..they just can't help themselves and most don't really read what you are asking before they are off pontificating! Good Luck in your quest for the superwide lens. My hope is you find what you are looking for ..God knows I have no suggestions on this topic as a novice.

[ShunCheung]

I think it is pretty safe to say what Bruce originally wants: an inexpensive but good super wide zoom (i.e. something reaching 20mm) for the FX D700 does not exist. You might try your luck on the 20-35mm/f2.8 AF-D or the 18-35mm AF-D. Or you might attempt something like a fixed 20mm/f2.8.

 

I am going to close this thread.