D700 or Nikon 24 1.4

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While I very much like that Nikon now makes a fast wide angle with SWM & current optics, I think at that price the fast 24 is a special-purpose lens for those who specifically need it e.g. for wedding photography, low light environmental portraits etc. I think the D700 or another FX body should come much earlier than you decide to commit such a large amount of money to a single wide angle prime. I think you will get more benefits from the D700 than this one lens.</p>

<p>There are many older lenses that were originally designed for film but which perform excellently on FX digital. I think it's not more expensive to build a workable FX lens setup than DX unless you specifically work with superteles. DX and older lenses work less well together since 1) the lenses are optimized for a larger area, so the center performance is somewhat compromised by the lens needing to cover DX, 2) because of the higher enlargement factor required when making prints from DX captures, slight focusing errors become large focusing errors in the print; FX is more forgiving in this respect, 3) the focal lengths are a better match for use with FX since that's the size they were intended for. The only group of lenses that FX has problems with is older superwides (shorter than 24/28mm); these should be avoided. Anything from 28mm on up typically performs better on FX than they did on 35mm film. I use some of the recent FX lenses as well as several older ones; it is not always the most recent lens that performs best for a given purpose. In fact it is often the case that in trying to appeal to broader audiences and to provide convenience into shooting as opposed to quality, compromises have been made. The one area where significant progress has been made is in the f/2.8 zooms, but even then there are specific problems in the most recent lenses such as excessive contrast in general (leading to requirement of soft lighting for a pleasing portrait) and softness at long distances (this affects especially 24-70 but also 70-200 Mk II). You just need to test different lenses for your specific applications and not believe wild generalizations such as film lenses don't work well on digital or some such nonsense.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>While the out-of-the-camera higher ISO images from the D200 are less than optimal, advances in software in recent times make it possible to get great results from the D200 with ISOs as high 1600 if you shoot RAW. Current software technology can transform noisy ISO 1600 images into shots that look like they were shot at ISO 400 or lower.</p>

<p>But if your money is burning a hole in your pocket, I would go with the D700 and an affordable 24mm or similar alternative before laying out the megabucks for the 24mm lens. </p>

[acarodp]

<p>I have a D200 and a D700. If you believe that in the change you just get better high ISO, you are wrong. In y experience:</p>

<ul>

<li>you get MUCH better high iso. 2 stops, roughly, but even when the noise looks similar, color saturation and detail retention is better on the D700.</li>

<li>At any ISO, you get noticeably better DR. As per DXOmark, the D700 has at 800 ISO more or less the DR of the D200 at 100 ISO.</li>

<li>you get always better color separation.</li>

<li>you get always much better shadow detail. </li>

<li>most (FX) lenses behave better on the D700, especially fast primes, due to the lower pixel density: in fact, LoCA and purple fringing are much less visible.</li>

</ul>

<p>Images from the D700 are simply better, easier to postproduce, more resilient to exposure errors, have better colors and appear "smoother", if you get my meaning. The difference IS significant, always, not only at high iso, not only in low light.</p>

<p>Now, mind you, I love my D200, it is quite competent, but the jump I got from the D700 is pretty visible. And I'm not even citing how much better the AF is, especially in low light and with fast lenses. I guess that also the mantra of "lenses over body", as any commonplace statement, is true most of the times, but not always. In this case you are comparing upgrading to a specialty lens, which after all gives you less than 1 stop advantage at one focal length, versus upgrading to a camera bo that gives you 2 stops advantage ALWAYS, plus bonuses at all ISO values.<br>

And besides this, here in Germany the D700 body only is actually less expensive than the indicated price of the 24 1.4, and it is going to go down more in the next months. This is of course assuming that you already have lenses which work on FX: if you rely significantly on DX lenses now, then the total cost of the FX solution goes up.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>If you buy the 24mm/1.4 AF-S to use it on a DX body, you would find it hard to truly enjoy the full extent of what this lens can do on an FX body.</p>

<p>If you buy a D700, may I ask you how many FX wide-angle lenses you have to take advantage of the D700?</p>

<p>I think the mutually exclusive options in your question do not give you much advantage.</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>I would get the D700, and then put a 35/2 on it. That would get you to you goal better than the 24/1.4 on a DX body. IMHO.</p>

[penwaggener]

<p>Dan beat me to it, but a D700 and any moderately fast, moderately wide lens will probably trump d200+24mm 1.4 for the same money, both in terms of low-light IQ and subject isolation.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I have used a D200 with a 24mm PC lens and the results are excellent. It's main use is architecture but it is also suitable for landscapes of various sorts. The 24mm is 36mm on a D200 so it is a modest wide angle.<br>

Recently, I bought a used Nikon F5 from Ffordes of Inverness for about £300 and the combination is excellent. The F5 is full frame but film which I still use.

[iwong]

<p>Buy the D700 and use the AFS 35/1.8 lens on it (as a 35mm focal length lens, i.e. FX, not in DX crop mode) until you can save up the funds for more FX lenses. I know the 35/1.8 is DX but it can be used on FX. There will be severe corner vignetting of course but by f/4, it is pretty much easily fixable by the D700's vignetting-correction menu option, or in post-processing. I know it sounds counterintuitive to use a f/1.8 lens at f/4 when you need its low-light capability, but as you know, the D700's high ISO cleanliness more than makes up for it compared to the D200.</p>