standard lens for nikon d700

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>hi guys !<br>

I just bought a nikon D700 and I own the 50mm 1.8 .....but I 'd like something better quality for general photography ( portraits, people, streets)and landscapes - like a prime standard lens .<br>

I also own sigma 24-70mm 2.8<br>

I saw here some posts about Voigtlander (58mm,20mm) , Zeiss (50 mm ,18mm). Is there any reall difference between my lens ( nikon 50mm) and these lenses?maybe another choice?<br>

I appreciate you answer !<br>

adrian</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>What do you mean by "better quality"? If you mean better mechanical quality, then yes, a manual focus prime from Zeiss, Voigtländer, or Nikon would be of better quality than the Nikon 50/1.8D AF. Optically? Then we start asking in what respect? Which aperture and distance are you using? Is distortion important to you? Vignetting?</p>

<p>My current favorite is the 50/1.4G AF-S Nikkor. It has very even sharpness across the frame at all apertures and the focusing is relatively quiet. However, it has some light falloff at wide apertures and also some distortion. the f/1.4G is clearly sharper at f/1.8 than the f/1.8D so if you do a lot of low light photography, it would be a better choice. Stopped down to f/2.5 or more the 1.8D is very competitive. The 1.8D has very little distortion. I don't use mine much these days as I find the barrel wobble annoying. Another near-normal lens that I like and that has much higher mechanical quality than the 50/1.8D AF is the 60mm AF-S Micro. If you don't need a very fast lens specifically, try it - it's very nice; great colour, fast focusing, nice bokeh.</p>

<p>If you go into manual focus lenses, the current Voigtländers are compact designs whereas the Zeiss ZF lenses are bigger. The 50/2 ZF macro gets very good reviews; some think it's the best 50 of all. It's quite expensive though.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>My answer is not to be taken as a rebuff- just my genuine advice. </p>

<p>I if you have indeed just purchased your D700 then use it with the glass you have and deduct for yourself which focal length prime you need or if indeed you do need one. Is versatility your key requirement, or IQ, or weight reduction, or a lens that is not going to attract attention on the street??</p>

<p>I (and other) can spend your money for you in a variety of different directions - you need to be more specific about your requirements. My recomendation is to go and take some photos with what you have now and see where the 'holes' in your lens line up lie after some time with your current equipment.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I saw here some posts about Voigtlander (58mm,20mm) , Zeiss (50 mm ,18mm). Is there any reall difference between my lens ( nikon 50mm) and these lenses?maybe another choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there are certainly some real differences:</p>

<ul>

<li>Your wallet will get lighter.</li>

<li>You will lose auto focus</li>

<li>You will lose electronic communication between your D700 and lens.</li>

<li>You will have lenses with some famous German brand logo on them.</li>

</ul>

<p>Otherwise, the Nikon 50mm/f1.8 is optically fine on your D700. I have tested the new Nikon 50mm/f1.4 AF-S, and that one is also a fine lens with the advantage of AF-S.</p>

<p>Once I tried the Zeiss 50mm/f1.4 ZF on my D2X, and I had a hard time focusing it manually, even though I have 20/15 vision (that is better than average.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The Voigtländer lenses are actually equipped with CPUs. People buy the Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses for their mechanical and optical characteristics, not because of their brand names. You don't lose anything as you still have your other (autofocus) lenses. Not all manual focus lenses are difficult to focus by eye; it depends on the specific lens. E.g. the 50mm and 100mm f/2 makro planars are very easy to manual focus.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ilkka, people pay for those overprices lenses mainly because of the Zeiss and Voigtländer brand names. If Cosina produced those exact same lenses but put their own logo on them, they would have been immediately classified into the same category as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses; worse yet, who wants to buy a Cosina lens with no AF in the 21 century?</p>

<p>Check out this thread when the Zeiss 50mm/f1.4 ZF first came out, and people simply could not tell images from different lenses apart: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00GIh2">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00GIh2</a><br />As I said, I tested that lens and found nothing special about it. Mechanically the ZF is well made, but so are many Nikon AI/AI-S lenses from 20, 30 years ago.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Shun, I know you generally aim to be as objective as you can, but here you are commenting sarcastically on two<em> </em> lineups of lenses and their users based on your prejudices, personal dislike of manual focusing, and experiences with one<em> </em> lens. (BTW. to a user of the 50/1.4 ZF its signature is clearly apparent in the images posted in that thread. The contrast and appearance of sharpness loss as a function of distance from the focused plane are characteristically different).</p>

<p>Cosina made cheap lenses with their own name, later they started making high quality lenses with the Voigtländer brand name. These are well known for their quality; in fact Bjorn Rorslett says he now uses the 125mm Voigtländer as his day to day macro lens (also, for landscapes), how's that for a recommendation? Even Zeiss decided on Cosina for the manufacture of most of their current SLR and rangefinder lenses so they have a fairly good reputation in the industry. If the same lenses were made in Germany, they would probably cost 2-3 times as much as they do today, yet the quality would probably not be much different.</p>

<p>The reason the Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses don't have autofocus is simple: phase-detect autofocus doesn't use the main sensor data for focusing but another sensor which doesn't see exactly the same light as the main sensor. Hence it's inherently not accurate. What the camera makers do is apply lens-specific corrections to get autofocus accuracy to an acceptable level. This can not be done for 3rd party lenses as the camera won't recognize the lens (adding a CPU doesn't solve this problem without the support of the camera maker), hence all the many reports of focusing problems with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina autofocus lenses. Zeiss and Cosina have simply decided it is not worth entering a series of high-quality lenses into the poorly working autofocus lens market. An AF system can only work properly if the manufacturers of the lens and the body work together (as in the case of Sony and Zeiss, or are the same company as when using Nikkors on Nikon bodies). It's a dead horse, nothing can be done about it as long as the major manufacturers insist on having their own incompatible mounts and lack of communication between them and the other lens makers. It is unnecessary to bash Cosina and Zeiss for making their lenses manual focus. It's not up to them; Nikon is the uncooperative culprit here. On the positive, as they're manual focus they can be built more robust and to much finer tolerances and hence better optical quality and durability over time.</p>

<p>I think the ZF lenses are fairly priced considering the quality, and the Voigtländer lenses are bargains. In some applications autofocus is unnecessary and these are nice lenses for those situations.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It is unnecessary to bash Cosina and Zeiss for making their lenses manual focus. It's not up to them; Nikon is the uncooperative culprit here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, of course Nikon is uncooperative with parties that make lenses that compete against Nikon lenses; I wonder why you blame Nikon as the "culprit" in this context? Who in the right mind would help the competition to beat themselves?</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that Zeiss and Cosina cannot overcome this technical challenge and their F mount lenses are manual focus. If one does not mind focusing manually, that is all fine, but without AF is clearly a serious limitation in many situations. Why should we as consumers just give Zeiss/Consina a pass and suffer from their differency while there are many excellent Nikkor AF and MF alternatives?</p>

<p>And what is the excsue that all ZF lenses do not have a CPU chip built in to communicate with the camera bodies?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but here you are commenting sarcastically on two<em> </em>lineups of lenses and their users based on your prejudices, personal dislike of manual focusing, and experiences with one<em> </em>lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is simply not true. In these days I use manual focus for all of my macro and landscape work. My favorite landscape lens is a manual-focus 24mm/f3.5 PC-E lens. A lot of my sample images in my Nikon D3X review were focus manually; in fact, in my review I explicitely pointed out how live view helps manual focusing on a tripod: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D3X/review/#viewfinder">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3X/review/#viewfinder</a></p>

<p>Additionally, I also have a couple of Zeiss lenses for my Contax 645 camera (all of which I still own) and rented additional Zeiss/Contax lenses as well as Hasselblad 6x6 with Zeiss lenses for comparion. When I bought the Contax back in 2001, I immediately compared all of those Zeiss lenses against my Nikkors using the same type of Velvia 50 film inspected with a 10x loupe, and I quickly concluded that while Zeiss lenses are nice, generally speaking there isn't any advantage over my Nikkors. My testing of the 50mm/f1.4 ZF on the D2X confirms that same conclusion.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Adrian -<br>

if you want a standard - yet excellent lens for your D700. First up - standard is the 50mm traditionally. But you're speaking of widening your selection. For what you mention I will recommend two lenses.<br>

the older & cheaper - 28-70mm f/2.8 AF - - used for about $ 1,000 these days.<br>

the new & very expensive but excellent 24-70mm AF G f/2.8 which probably costs around $ 1,900 these days.<br>

As much as primes are a wonderful way to go. You will have to have a lot of lenses along. As for buying Zeiss ZF & Voigtländer lenses are supposedly wonderful - but to do street photography with MF lenses seems a tad much. If you really want primes - Nikon has many excellent primes for all that you may want, which are all AF.<br>

Matthew tried to help in all of this - do not disregard his comment. :-)<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>Hello everybody !<br>

Well.....nice and detailed answers....thank you<br>

I should be more specific in what I want to do:<br>

I am an old school part time photographer, meaning I used with MF lenses, I take my time focusing, using tripods, sometimes I really feel the AF bothers me for certain subjects like portraits or landcapes .<br>

that's why I prefere a good optical quality lens for my D700, and I need your advices<br>

price? up to 600 $<br>

I shot most portratits in availible light ( outdoor), and landscapes , streets, people<br>

I don't need action<br>

I don't care about the brand name as long it is a v goog quality lens<br>

I 'd like to have one better than my nikon 50 mm 1.8 ( the cheap one 130 $)<br>

I m also plannning to do some large prints in next future , so probably sharpness and resolution? ( I am an amator still)</p>

<p>thank you again, waiting for your suggestions<br>

adrian</p>

 

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>LIL !<br>

I mentioned I own a sigma 24-70 2.8 constant apperture, I need something lighter , smaller .<br>

I dont do wedings , so this short zoom is usless for me for now<br>

I need a set of 3 prime v good optical quality lenses do cover landscapes, portraits , macros and general photography ..I am an amator , I dont make money but I have high expectations</p>

 

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>Shun !<br>

Thank you for your oppinions, they are correct, I red many of your posts and articles, they are very well done.<br>

as I know you own lot of professional gears , so speking about the wallet getting lighter is against what you did , right ? ( forgive me , I don t mean being sarcastic , just to point that the price doesent matter if I want quality )<br>

I dont mind loosing AF<br>

communication with the camera? I don t even know what is that, I shot most on manual film cameras so...I know how to shot on manual, the only reason I bought this digital d700 is because digital is more convinient these days.<br>

So lets say I need god lenses for the way I am used with , MANUAL</p>

<p>thank you for your answers ( and for future answers , too)<br>

adrian</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Adrian - on that budget - forget the Zeiss ZF & Voigtländer lenses - they cost a lot more.<br>

So how about a 24mm prime unless you want to go to 20mm, you have a 50mm, & then a 60mm macro. The 60mm I think a lot of people use for portraits as well.<br>

A 60mm macro f/2.8 D you can get off eBay for about $ 300-350 & the 24mm prime for probably about the same<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When I was young, I used to worship those German lenses also. I bought a Leica with two lenses when I was 17 and still own them now. It took me a long time to figure out that today, with computer-aided design and a sufficient budget, just about anybody can manufacture excellent lenses. However, if you brand name is Sigma, Cosina, etc, you simply cannot charge a high price. Additionally, except for those with 5x, 10x zoom ranges, today's zoom lenses are excellent; even those super-zooms can still produce fine images most of the time.</p>

<p>If you want excellent images, focus on developing your photography skills and use a tripod as much as possible. The Nikon 50mm/f1.8 AF-D is considered a major bargain today. You can spend several time as much money on another 50mm lens but will unlikely see much difference. Once upon a time I wasted a lot of effort chasing those German optics; it is not a good idea to repeat my mistakes.</p>

<p> </p>

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>the Zeiss 50mm costs about 650 $ and the Voigtlander 50 mm costs about 350 $<br>

thats why I was thinking buying one of these, I dont trust in a 130 $ Nikon new lens, event it pased the tests<br>

and by the way the people say nikon lenses are over priced just because the brand name</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>IMHO the only Zeiss 50 that optically could be worth it (probably the only ZM to my liking) is the 50 Makro Planar... at a very high cost. It is near 1000EUR here. The benefit is to have an outstanding resolution starting wide open (that is, from f2) with the lowest CAs on a 50mm prime.</p>

<p>Even so it is not worth to me at any price for the reason mentioned above. The lack of AF and the D700 screen makes this lens useful only for static subjects and/or a slow way of working. If you don`t mind to spend that money and yearn for the best manual lens on F mount, this could be the first choice... after a few weeks you probably will miss a 50AFS. The 60/2.8AFS Micro is closer (behind) the Makro Planar, but f2.8 seems to me a bit slow for a "standard" prime.</p>

<p>The MF ring in the AFS is nice, of course not like the older AiS lenses and light years from my Leica M modern lenses, but in real life absolutely functional and usable. The MF override is great and is starting to be very useful to my taste. You can use this lens perfectly in manual focus mode. The 50/1.8AFD lacks in this aspect.</p>

<p>I`m a sharpness freak, a slightly bit unfocused image get me mad: my first corcern is always to have a perfect focus and then, to choose the optimal aperture in relation with the required DoF. My favourite current standard lens is the 50AFS. I think there is not a big optical difference with my previous 50/1.8AFD except for bokeh; if you look for out of focus backgrounds (like me), corner sharpness is not a big issue.</p>

[bokeh man1]

<p>Stop obssessing over gear, the 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens. Throwing money at the hobby won't make your pictures great, practice will. Also if you want the highest number of keepers forget manual focus.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I have the 50 1.4D and it is great on my D700. I would imagine the G would be even better. Right now I use a Sigma EX 24-60 2.8 but plan to buy the new 24-70 HSM version at some point. For a standard zoom lens I think the new Sigma HSM is hard to beat. Even though it is 900.00 it is about 1/2 the price of the Nikon. I wish I had had bought the 50mm G version but I really can't complain with the image quality at all with the 1.4D. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned and incredible on the D700. I forgot how perfect the 50mm is on a full size 35mm sensor.</p>

[peter]

<p>The 50 1.8 Nikkor is rather plasticy in its build quality and so does not inspire confidence but in truth its optical quality is superb. Often said to be one of Nikon's sharpest and best (as is often the case with simple lenses that concentrate on doing one thing and doing superbly.) But I cannot deny that the 50 1.4 has a much better feel to it. It seems a much more sturdy lens - but then again it should be as it costs 2-3 times as much. In optical performance they are pretty similar. If you wish to stick to a high quality prime (but one with better build quality) you could get the 50 1.4 in any of its versions and know that you are getting great lens. Here is a shot from mine - the first AF version. There is nothing to complain about in this picture except maybe my point of focus is a tiny bit off and that's my fault.<br /> http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o251/peterm1_bucket/_DSC0785.jpg<br /> Another option that I am lusting after is the the 85mm f1.8. It's dearer again but of similar build to the 50 1.4. It is renowned as a Nikon classic. I love the ability to shoot this thing wide open and get pin sharp images with blurred backgrounds. For myself I prefer a longer lens as it suits my style so if I had the chance this is the one I would go for - I will definitely get one eventually.</p>

<p> </p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>adrian, you mentioned portrats. If you don't mind manual focus, the old 105mm f/2.5 is a wonderful portrait lens - super sharp with nice out-of-focus backgrounds. An acknowledged classic. Should be around $200.</p>

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>well, lots of great and documented answers, thank you -everybody<br>

it seems I better keep my nikon 50mm 1.8 AF (the cheap one) instead buying the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 or nikon 50mm 1.4 ( both costs more than double)<br>

probably is matter of trust , a cheap lens doesn t inspire trust, we used to think " you have to pay for the quality"<br>

I imagined that the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 is an example of quality for a very good price( 370 $ Adorama)</p>

<p>Kent -<br>

the 105 mm 2.5 lens can be used on D700 event is not designed for digital ? ( coats ??)</p>

 

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Yes, the 105mm f/2.5 should work fine on a D700. (I don't have a D700, but the lens is great on my D300.) You just have to make sure to get an AI, AIS, or AI'd version - not the very old non-AI type. There's more good information here: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html</a>.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>You have not mentioned what other lenses you are using beyond the 50 and the sigma; for $600, it seems to me you would be far better off buying a different focal length (or a zoom) and experimenting with other fields of view rather than pursuing the ultimate sharpness in a 50. The difference is likely to be marginal, much less noticeable than trying other lenses. Go for an ultra wide or a different focal length tele, it will have more impact on your photography than a slightly better 50.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Adrian, as Kent mentioned you should have a look at Bjorn's reviews. I use several Nikkor primes that are AI or AIS. I also have some AF primes and zooms. There are several three prime manual focus lens kits you may want to consider: 20mm f2.8, 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 or 28mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 105mm f2.5 or 24mm f2.8, 50mm and 105mm. I don't have a suggestion for macro but depending on your needs it could fit easily. I very much enjoy using the older AIS primes when focus time is not important.</p>