What Lens Do You Have On Your D700 Right Now?

[ken_i_h]

<p>Justin, I think I have the similar tendency and in assuming so I agree with you. One thing, among other things, I seek in photography is "detail" and I tend to get close, even more so than many here. 105/2.8 macro VR is a wonderful lense for the job. Being able to use teleconvertor with it is the bonus.<br /> But, I also like landscape as well as portrait in the street or events. So, I like my 17-35, and aiming for 85/1.4 or 1.8 next. 24-70 is, maybe compromise, still great lense to carry around, too.<br>

Calvin, sorry for diversion from you intended question.<br>

Ken</p><div></div>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Amazing shot at ISO 6400, Ken.</p>

<p>Did you use Noise Reduction on your D700, or do any post-processing?</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>Calvin, yes, I did. I did also process with NX2, using mostly quick fix (level and tone-curve) to make it blacker and to add more contrast. Maybe a bit overdone but it became interesting - like a CG :-)<br>

I also use circular polarizer to ease the light reflection on the glass.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Awesome.</p>

[sven keil]

<p>Nothing which wasn't mentioned so far: It's the <a href="../photo/8155940"><strong> 35mm/f1.4</strong> </a> or the <strong>50mm/f1.4</strong> most of the time.</p>

<p>I recently tested the <a href="../photo/9065074"><strong>35mm/f2 AiS</strong> </a> , which also seems to give decent results, at least stopped down.<br>

<br /> I wasn't so happy with the AF-50mm/f1.8 on my D700, IMO it delivers better results on the D70s and S5 in terms of color rendition.<br>

<br /> And of course, not to forget, the <a href="../photo/7865778"><strong>85mm/f1.4 </strong> </a> makes the D700 really shine (or vice versa)<br /> Until now, I did not test the combination 180mm/f2.8 + D700. Anbody can comment on respective results?</p>

<p> </p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Toby,<br>

<br />Don't worry.<br>

<br />Most of the time I use the 17-35mm - just that literally right now (then!) it happened to be the 21mm Distagon.</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>Leigh mentioned above, the really nice 28-200mm G lens. This is the lens I find the best for a walkabout with the D700. It's a great little lens, small light and good quality. When on the D700, the combination is light, easy on the wrist and very versatile. I put a 50mmf1.8 in my pocket if I want to have something with me for low light.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have the 28-70/f3.5-4.5D-AF Nikkor on my D700 most of the time. The 60 Micro gets a fair bit of use in the studio too.</p>

[mike mcdermott]

<p>For me It's my 50mm AFS G. After that it's my 14-24.</p>

<p>I'm undecided as what to get next, either the 24-70 or an 85mm f1.4. I doupbt that I'd need anything longer on my D700 than an 85mm lens.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

[uzay_ki_i]

<p>I use 24-85 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 with D700, 24-85 is quite a good alternative for walkabout (with it's price also) now i'm aiming a 17-35 and 14mm.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>I shoot with a a D300 and a D700 and have a 17-35, 70-200 and 200-400. I always keep the 200-400 on the D300 and the wider lenses on the D700. If the light gets low and I need reach, I put the 200-400 on the D700 because of the great high ISO performance.</p>

[jvf]

<p>calvin.<br>

Never found 70 mm to 'short', I too was i Venice lately, almost 1000 pcs in 6 days 99% with my 24-70.<br>

Here is one:</p><div></div>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Jens, that does it. If I ever go to Venice, I'll have to bring a mighty 24-70mm with me.</p>

[donald_weston1]

<p>Calvin - sorry for the delay in response, lost the 17-55, actually traded it after I switched from D200 to 5d for awhile, but also too big, heavy, was no better then a Tamron 17-50mm I had for a Canon 20D[remember I shoot mostly landscape/travel and almost never need f2.8]. Thought I had settled on Canon for awhile, but alas came back to Nikon. Don't know that I would have bought another 17-55 either way, as my intention was to go lighter and FX which is what I have done....fwiw...</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have used the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF-D on my D700. The AF is faster and less hunting than on my D200. I liked the shoots using this lens, all action so far.</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>50mm f1.8 af (non d) 90% of the time. </p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Donald.</p>

<p>What brought you back? For me, from what I've seen of Canon and Zeiss, I have to place Nikon a close third in terms of image quality. However Nikon trumps all when it comes to ergonomics, hardware looks, and ease and convenience of use.</p>

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

<p>50% 85/1.4, 25% 50/1.4, 20% 180/2.8, 5% 35/2.0</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>I am in Amsterdam today with a rented 24-70.<br>

Still trying to decide whether to buy, so trip to Holland and Belgium seemed a good excuse to test drive one.<br>

Used it yesterday with the grip, an attachment I find mandatory with big lenses, particularly shooting verticals. After walking 6 hours with this combo I found it awfully heavy and attention getting. Many looked at it/me warily.<br>

Several people approached to discuss it and/or to ask how I liked it compared to _____________. Of course, it IS the Queen's Birthday today so many, many of these people were and, I am confident, still are drunk.<br>

Anyway, today, the actual Q's BD, I've been using the 50mm 1.8 without the grip...even drunker (!) companions (all one million of them) but a better experience. "Normal" size body and "normal" size lens like lots of other folks.<br>

Late this afternoon and this evening I'll be using a Panasonic LX3 point and shoot with a similar (24-60 equiv) zoom range to the Nikon. Less vulnerable to pickpockets and I won't look like "a real photographer."</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>I mainly use a CZ Planar 50mm 1.4 ZF on my D700. Quite heavy enough so far as I am concerned but not over conspicuous. I can crop and enlarge quite small sections to at least 12 in x 8 ins and get perfectly acceptable results without special interpolation software so I see no need to have a heavy zoom that goes to only 70mm. If I needed a 300mm tele, however, that would not be replaced by cropping, but that does not arise for me. Of course one cannot get more into the frame if there is no room to move back, so I sometimes carry a 28mm 2.8 AIS in my pocket but rarely use it since I am not keen on obvious wide angle effects. The standard 50mm focal length is just fine most of the time for street scenes, people, etc. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I use my Rodenstock 11-560 f/1.4 ED AFS VR Micro lens all the time, but why would it matter to you? You're not going to see the world the same way that I do, so why try to mimic my lens choices? Go through your photos, pick out your favorites, and figure out what focal lengths you use to get your most effective shots. That will tell you what you need to carry.</p>

 

[evilsivan]

<blockquote>

<p>Tomorrow, April 30, my country, Netherlands, celebrates the birthday of the queens mum. I will go to a city and take pictures of people that try to sell whatever you can think of, and celebrating with our national drink .... lots of beer, ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, I hope you're ok! I'm sorry about the terrible tragedy.</p>

<p>Ofer</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>To the minute, I have the Micro 105/2.8 AI and a 25mm extension tube on it.<br>

Else then, mostly 17-35 AF-S or the 80-200 AF-D 2.8. the mid-range: 28-105 AF-D 3.5-4,5 or AF-D 50/1.4 in case there ever is not enough light (which ist rarely the case with the D700), or I need less DOF.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ilmilco]

<p>Yesterday, before hearing about the big tragedy in the Netherlands during the celebration of queensday, i was walking around in the city of Utrecht, taking pictures of people celebrating the 100st birthday of our former queen Juliana. During this day i have used the D700 with 24-70.<br>

I like to share 2 pictures with the people here that had questions on the performance of this lens.<br>

I am very happy with the lens quality.</p>

<div></div>

[ilmilco]

<p>The second picture i would like to share is a close-up of her eyes, just taken at 100% from the original file</p>

<div></div>