bsd230 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I currently own a D200 with a Sigma 24-60 2.8. I have sold all my other lenses with the plan of buying a new D700. I am looking for some suggestions on lenses. It seems like the 24-120 kit lens doesn't get very good reviews, but the range sounds good. I would like something with a little more range than my current lens, but I would to keep it as sharp as possible. I am willing to use 3 party lenses as well. Any suggestions for a walk around lens would be great. I will be buying a 50mm lens as well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_janssen Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>You could use your 24-60 for that. I have this set up:<br> used Sigma 15-30 used Tamron 28-75 and a Nikkor 70-200 VR.<br> I bought the Sigma and Tamron to replace my Sigma 10-20 and Nikkor 17-55 2.8 and had no money for the Nikkors. I like the Tamron very much and I think it will there for a long time, the Sigma will change for a Sigma 12-24 or a Nikkor 14-24, when I find some money somewhere.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I have a D700 and two zooms, a Nikkor 28-105mm and 75-150mm E for walk around snaps. If price, size and weight where not issues I would have a 17-35mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkors also. I usually use small Nikkor primes from 20mm to 500mm, some better than others. A friend has the 24-120 and it delivers good images, slow but nice range. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I found the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 a very good walkaround lens for my D700. It's sharp and well made for a non-Nikkor lens. Best of all I got it for the bargain price of $152 on the auction site.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I guess I could keep my 24-60 2.8 and use it to see if it has the same image quality with the D700. I know I will need somthing long as the full frame will lose a little on the long end. I am thinking the 24mm might be wide enough for my needs. I had a 18-200 originally with my D200 and found the 18mm was wide enough most of the time. The 24 is a little too tight with the D200 but will probably be ok with the 700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I have found the 24-70 to be an excellent general-purpose zoom on the D700. I would add a 105 prime (e.g. the 105mm af-s vr micro)for longer shots and a 180/2.8 if needed. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I'm sorry - but I just don't get this - but I see it everywhere. Why spend all that money on a camera body & not get the lenses of better quality. I've been taught - lenses first. So, spend the money on the lenses & then upgrade the camera body.<br> I just don't get it........<br> Lil</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>The 1990's 28-70.f3.5-4.5D-AF Nikkor is a great low cost alternative for the D700. I use it way more often than my 28-70/2.8 AF-S. No apologies required.</p> <p>On the longer end, why not get the very nice 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR lens. That pair will serve you quite well.</p> <p>If you are looking to spend a lot more, have at it, there are tons of reviews and opinions out there.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niccoury Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I agree with Lil Judd, get nice glass, you'll notice it more.</p> <p>I'm a working newspaper photog and my lens set up on the D700 is all Nikkor f/2.8's: 20-35, 28-70, 70-200 and a handfull of primes.</p> <p>The 20-35 is small, older gem. It's sharp and fair inexpensive and is super nice on the full frame. Hell, even getting a older Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D, is a great choice too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_manessinger Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Lil, there are a thousand reasons. <p> One is, that one wants the better body for higher ISO. If I shoot all the time in no light, a sensitive sensor is a much higher priority than an ultra-sharp lens. <p> Another reason is, that third-party lenses are not as bad as some people here want you to believe. Sigma has probably the worst reputation on Photo.net, the worst reputation that any lens maker could probably have. Still, some of my best lenses are not Nikon but Sigma lenses. Visit my blog at <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/">http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/</a>, have a look at my <a target="_blank" href="">lens index</a>. I openly admit, I am a Sigma user. Now come and challenge me on technical grounds. No problem, we can discuss everything :) <p> Don't get me wrong: some of my Sigma lenses are undisputably top quality (70/2.8 or 50/1.4), some are not more than quite good (30/1.4, 150/2.8), and some may be unacceptable for many. The latter is certainly true for the 20/1.8, although it is one of my favorite lenses. The sharpest knife is pretty wasted if what you need is a hammer :) <p> As to the original question: Brian, you are obviously used to the range of 35-90, thus I guess a 28-xxx would be not exactly unacceptable for you, and there is quite a range to choose from, Nikon and others. On the other hand, the Nikon 24-70 is certainly the berst choice in town. It's only big, expensive and heavy. <p> Have you considered using a set of small primes? I use a Nikon 24/2.8 on my D300, and although it is not the best of lenses (ghosting mostly), I love it for its weight and size. A kit with the Nikon 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 will take you a long way and it won't cost you a limb, in fact about the same as the 24-70/2.8. You'd have to change lenses more often, but if you do photography for the pleasure and not for a living (especially not journalistically), you won't have too much of a problem to get acquainted to changing lenses. Personally I think that using a fixed focal length does not impede me, much to the contrary, it helps me make better images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Why don't you try your 24-60 on the D700 first and see how it works there for you - you can always add another lens to cover the longer end or exchange the 24-60 if it doesn't suit you.<br /> While I in general agree with what Lil said, I find it a bit harsh. Especially people that like wide angle might be tempted to switch from DX to FX - it doesn't necessarily make it mandatory to purchase the Nikon 24-70/2.8. While it is a great lens, it might not be the best for ones particular needs or wallet. The 24-70 does not guarantee automatically good picture and the 24-120 can produce some great results too.</p> <p>And as Andreas pointed out - sometimes a zoom is more about convenience than necessity - at least on digital (not for shooting slides). Unfortunately, for DX, the Nikon wide-angle prime lineup isn't very appealing. But I could easily envision ditching my 24-84 in favor of a 24 and a 85 - and maybe throw in a 35 for good measure. The 17-55 does not appeal to me at all, since I have the range to 24 covered with the 12-24 and the 50/1.8 can do the rest.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Dieter - if my answer was harsh I apologize to everyone on the board - & especially to Brian. But I keep seeing just these questions & especially when it comes to the D700. Often many seem to just want to upgrade to the D700 & just don't have any lenses for it & go very cheap in lenses. I believe Tamron has a 28-75mm f/2.8 which is super so I do know there are some excellent choices out there. Still - to spend all that money on the camera & then completely cheap out on the lenses makes no sense to me.<br /> So to Brian & the board - - if my answer seems harsh - I am sorry & hope you'll consider forgiving the frustration & lack of patience on my side. My shortcoming for sure....<br /> <br /> On the up side - - the cheapest & absolutely stunning lens to add to the D700 is the 50mm f/1.8 AF which can be bought for a mere $ 100.00 & that's a Nikkor.... Can't beat that price<br /> Lil :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Some say the 24-120mm is good. Others not. I have owned two copies and my current copy which I use on my D3, like my original copy, is excellent and as good as any other Nikon lens I own.</p> <p>You can buy one used on ebay for about $300 or less which makes it really easy to own. But if you are shooting in low light or need shallow depth-of-field, nothing beats the 70-200 or 24-70 combo. Of course, they cost about 10x more than the 24-120mm!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p><em> One is, that one wants the better body for higher ISO.</em></p> <p>Right, but using a consumer zoom with the D700 yields inferior results to a D300 equipped with high quality lenses even in low light. That's the thing - it only makes sense to use the D700 for low light if you're using high quality, fast, glass. A D300 with the 70-200 VR (17-55) is very likely to dwarf a D700 with 70-300 VR (24-120) any day, in any conditions (my experience is with the D200 though, but the f/2.8 zooms on D200 easily outperformed the 70-300 used on FX; and having seen large prints of the D3 with the 24-120 that Nikon displayed when the D3 was introduced were decent but not close to the 17-55's. The D300 is only better than the D200 from everything I've seen).</p> <p>I'm a fan of the FX cameras but I really think one needs to start collecting top glass before going for an FX body. The 50/1.8 is an excellent start that'll really get the most out of the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p><em>"...consumer zoom with the D700 yields inferior results</em> <em>... in any conditions" </em> I have tested my consumer lenses against my pro lens and except under low light/high ISO shooting conditions, the results are virtually the same.</p> <p>As a walk-around lens, the 24-120mm represents an excellent value, has a very useful zooom range and delivers excellent IQ for FX use.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Ok, Elliot, I'll bite. Are you saying that the more expensive D700+24-120 setup yields superior image quality under the majority of circumstances compared to the less expensive D300+17-55/2.8 DX setup, sufficient to warrant the higher cost of the FX camera? Can you show that with example images? I assume that the user can choose the optimal shutter speed and aperture for each shot given the capabilities of the equipment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Lil, no apologies necessary, your opinion is just as valid as everyone elses.<br /> I bought the D700 because I had a few high quality manual focus Nikkor primes I wanted to use on it. And my suspicions were confirmed upon using them, they are just as good as they have always been. I'm not a big fan of zoom lenses, I normally want to work with one or two focal lengths at a time, and these primes are as good as I need. I have no desire to walk around shooting with a giant Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 zoom attached to my camera. A lens that size deserves a tripod, which I normally do not use in my photography (but am wanting to do more often). And I don't care how good people think the D200 is, you can add a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 zoom to it, but you're still shooting with the limitations the D200 has (as some of you know, I recently had to sell my D700 to pay off a credit card and am now stuck with the D200, which isn't bad, but I miss the D700 sometimes). To me, the body comes first, it will make all your lenses better (to a certain degree).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_s1 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Brian, I would try the 24-60 on the D700 first. If you like this combo I would rather add the fantastic 105/2.5 Nikkor (I use two of them, both Ai-converted jewels from the 70s, they are small, have really nice optics and would be a perfect match for your 24-60) than buy a 24-120 or even two new zooms. I don't own Nikons 24-70 - and while it's optics are simply outstanding I don't want to lug around another big and heavy zoom (the 14-24 is always in my bag). <br> Hope this helps, georg.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Ilkka, with low ISO my 24-120mm will typically give pretty much equal results to my 24-70mm or 70-200mm. I have typically found no difference in image quality from a DX camera to an FX camera (at low ISO). I no longer have a D300 but I would venture to say that a D700 with the 24-120mm will give pretty much equal results to the D300 with the 17-55mm at low ISO. I compared my lowly 18-55mm lens against the 17-55mm and found both lenses delivered pretty much equal IQ at low ISO.</p> <p>The OP stated he is looking for a little more range than his current lens and a walk around lens. I think the 24-120mm fits his criteria. I am not suggesting that the 24-120mm is a replacmenet for a fast aperture lens for low light shooting. But as a general purpose lens, it performs quite well, especially considering it has VR and its low cost.</p> <p>I have yet to see anyone show any real difference in IQ between and FX and DX cameras at low ISO. I have tested the two myself and found no differences.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>seems a shame to put zoom lenses on such a capable body</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>OK people, from now on it is only allowed to utilize lenses that each cost more than the camera body they are mounted to - kind of narrows down the choices substantially, now does it?<br> I'm getting tired of the argument that because the camera cost so much, the lenses one can use now have to match in price. Given that DSLR are being replaced by newer better models at very quick pace - maybe the real problem is that bodies are just priced too high?<br> A quick glance and the many lens reviews on the internet as well as the many forum posts will quickly reveal that opinions on lenses can differ widely. Not to mention that "problems" that reveal themselves in lab tests often have little bearing in real life use- in addition to the fact that what is barely acceptable to one person might be the best since sliced bread for the other.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I would agree that quality glass is important that is why I was looking for alternatives to the kit lens which seems to be average at best. I have sold off many of my lenses because I wanted to get lenses that will work best with the FX sensor. This is the main reason I am upgrading. I really don't like most of the super wide angle lenses on the market and would rather have a decent wide angle and a fx sensor. The only reason why I have kept the 24-60 Sigma is because I got a sweet deal on it and it is very sharp. I sold the 18-200 because I was not satisfied with the image quality. It is a great general purpose lens but I didn't like it as a main lens. I will probably try my 24-60 and see if it works with the D700. If this lens works I will spend my money on a quality 70-200 or 80-200.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>Another reason I am considering this body is the high ISO image quality. I shoot indoors a lot and it would be nice to not have to use flash all the time in order to get usable photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_santo Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I use the Nikon 24-70/2.8 on my D700 about 60%-70% of the time. For the balance I use the Nikon 14-24/2.8. Once you try these lenses, its hard to go back. I have a D200 and I use a Nikon 300/2.8 and a Sigma 150-500 OS with the crop sensor body for long work.<br> Buy what makes you happy and use your tools to make good photographs. That's all that matters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 <p>I am so sorry everyone - this all started because of my comment & I am most unhappy with the result. :-( This was not my intention........... I am so sorry & feel just horrible right now. As probably well I should. Guys - we're normally such a nice group of people...... I am sorry my answer sounded harsh - but now it's getting out of hand.<br> Lil</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now