What Lens Do You Have On Your D700 Right Now?

[donald_weston1]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

Sorry for the long winded response....</p>

 

[donald_weston1]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

Sorry for the long winded response....</p>

 

[bsd230]

<p>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.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for the insight into your experiences, Donald.</p>

<p>My mentors are Canon shooters and they do not deny your assertions regarding focus problems.</p>

[peejay1]

<p>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:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rushfan2112/3488601550/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/rushfan2112/3488601550/</a></p>

<p>(I couldn't work out how to insert the photo here - sorry, I'm a bit of a 'Luddite' when it comes to technology).</p>

<p>I also have the 24mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.8, 85mm/f1.8 and 70-300mm VR.</p>

[hiro]

<p>Right now I have the Tamron 28-75 on.<br>

33% as good as the 24-70 at 25% of the price. (:</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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 <i>wanted</i> 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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>The 24-70mm is on my D700 right now.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>At least one photographer I saw at Yankee Stadium today had a 400/4.8 Nikkor on his D700.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for the historical perspective, Ilkka.</p>

[jonas_yip1]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>j</p>

[jlarson6130]

<p>At the moment I have my Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX mounted. Works great for Fast pitch softball.<br>

Most of the time I have the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S D mounted, it's my general purpose lens.<br>

If I want to go light weight, I use the 50 f/1.8</p>

[edchambers]

<p>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.</p>

[keith_robinson1]

<p>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!<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Keith</p>

[douglas_knox1]

<p>Keith<br>

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.<br>

Doug</p>

[henrymudd]

<p>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.<br>

But honestly when I want to travel light, I prefer the D300 and the 18-200.<br>

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.</p>

[frank g.]

<p>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.<br>

Frank</p>

<p> </p>