Picture Quality of D700 with 20 2.8 AF vs. D300 with 14-24 2.8 at 14mm

[petr_tyll]

Hi guys, with my budget I can get either D700 with 20 2.8 AF or D300 with 14-24 2.8. What do you think would deliver better picture

quality for me at 20 resp. 21mm equivalent? I want to use it for architecture and landscape photography. I am asking from a viewpoint of quality not from the "what is the more clever buy" perspective. Thank you!

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Petr - I'm very happy with my 14-24 on my D700, but you're paying for something that's sharp right to the edge of an FX frame. I don't believe the 20mm f/2.8 is considered all that special, although I could be wrong. (The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, for comparison, is pretty good, but costs much more.)<br />

<br />

Are you sure you'd not be better off with a high-end wide DX zoom used on a D7000 or D5100? You'd get more pixels, and probably better low-light performance than the D300. I'm not sure image quality would be worse, at least than the prime option, especially if you don't need to use it wide open the whole time.</p>

[petr_tyll]

Thank you Andrew, ofcourse the D700 with 14-24 would be best! But with my budget I think I can not have both. I

would like to get to the FF later. Anyway, you think I wd get better outcome with crop body example D7000 (D5100)

with let's say Nikon 10-24 then with D700 with 20 2.8?

[dan_brown4]

<p>While maybe not the better optically of the two choice, I would get the D700 and 20mm lens. The 14-24 is a specialized and big honking lens. Not a good choice for everyday use.</p>

<p>Lots of other options that I would prefer. Such as the D7000 and one of the several DX ultrawide zooms.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>The AF 18mm f2.8D Nikkor is also in the ball-park if you want something to shoot architecture and landscape photography with a Nikon D700 body.</p>

<p>It (the AF 18mm) has very good glass.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Petr,<br>

Let's make it far more complex :-D<br>

My choice, out of your list, would be neither. I see no virtue getting a D700 without having the budget to also have really nice lenses to complement it. Likewise, I see no virtue in getting a D300 at this moment if it's not for sports or wildlife (where its AF comes into play). The D7000 is otherwise just more attractive.<br>

My vote would be a D7000 with either Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5. If you care about future proofing: 16-35 f/4 VR.In case of the Nikon lenses, you could even consider the D5100, since the advantages of the D7000 do not come into play greatly for stationary (tripod) work, and/or if you do not own other lenses already.<br>

The 20 f/2.8 has no great reputation on digital cameras, and the 14-24 may be a stellar lens, but huge, expensive and heavy. The wide angle DX lenses are not in the same league, but they're not that far off, and a very significant amount cheaper. And for both landscape and architecture, you do not need f/2.8 performance typically. Stop down to f/8, and you'll find that most lenses are very good performers.<br>

So, if you really only care about very wide angles: the D7000 with Tokina 11-16 (until you can afford the successor to the D700 with 14-24 or the 16-35).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry about the delay, Petyr. I'd agree with Wouter - the D700 and D300 are good low-ish light sports cameras for those who aren't in the market for a D3s. For landscapes and architecture, you don't need fast frame rates or exceptional autofocus, and you probably don't need low light performance. I've taken landscape photos that I like with my D700, but that's not where the camera excels; a D3x or even a 5D2 (or possibly even a 5D mk 1...) have the resolution edge. I got the 14-24 before there were any decent DX wide-angle options.<br />

<br />

Add to that the inflated price of the D700 (and, I guess, 14-24?) since the Sendai earthquake and the likelihood of a replacement appearing in the near future (not internal knowledge, just likely from the market situation) and I'd be wary of buying a D700 even if it was ideally suited to your needs. This isn't because a D700 is a bad camera - I have no plans to replace mine - but if something better isn't about to come along, it already has...<br />

<br />

I'd look at a D5100 or possibly D7000, and (not having a DX body from which to acquire personal experience) go with the Tokina 11-16. I've heard quite mixed reports on the 16-35 f/4 (photozone's one seems to have had quite poor corners). As Wouter says, save your money now, and keep an eye out for a D700x (or whatever they do with the remaining D3x sensors after a D4 gets announced).<br />

<br />

You might also consider film. Velvia in a Pentax 645 is cheap, easy and very pretty - although the 35mm f/3.5 to get the field of view you want is hard to track down (I've been keeping an eye out); going to 5x4 and committing yourself to a tripod will give you movements for architecture, and blow away anything below medium format digital backs. A bit less handy when you try to wheel the camera out to take snaps of your friends on a night out, of course.<br />

<br />

Best of luck with whatever you get.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As I pointed out a few weeks ago, currently it is by far the worst time to buy a new D700. It is 4-year-old technology that a replacement is due. Meanwhile prices are higher than it was back in late 2008 when the D700 was fairly new, mainly due to the shortage after the Japan earthquake and tsumni.</p>

<p>Moreover, I don't think it is a good idea to spend so much money on an FX DSLR and then stick an old Nikon 20mm/f2.8 lens on it; that lens' optical design is from the film era and is well over two decades old.</p>

<p>If you are into super wides, the 14-24mm/f2.8 is a wonderful lens. But it is mainly for building interior type situations. It has a bulging front element so that filters are not practical. (I know Lee Filters is makeing a bracket for it; that is very cumbersome and expensive. To me, it is not at all practical.) If you are into landscape photography, consider the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S or 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR instead. When you have a choice between adding a DSLR body or a lens, typically you are much better off updating the lens first. DSLRs lose value quickly, especially when you are starting with an aging model whose price is unusually high due to shortage.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Invest in lenses first, and worry about full frame later. Especially since the D700 is not a good purchase at this time. If you enjoy superwide angle photography then get the 14-24 now with one of D90, D2X, D300, or D7000.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>on a DX sensor i would go with the sigma 8-16 if you need ultra-ultrawide angle. a 14-24 on DX makes little sense. for FX, look into the tokina 17/3.5 as an affordable wide prime.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>I've been using the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on D300 and love it. I'm an ultrawide guy. My strategy is to simply wait for the "D400" upgrade to the D300. In the past I've rarely seen much difference at all in my photos when I put big money into a camera, but do see a difference when I put money into lenses. Don't forget that both D300 & D700 are 13mp cameras, and could use more rez like the sensor in the D7000. Buy a used Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or something, and sit tight a few more months. Money put into lenses is rarely a mistake.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget that both D300 & D700 are 13mp cameras, and could use more rez like the sensor in the D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not if you don't need to print above 16x20. in fact, the d300 would be perfect if it had the d700's high-ISO capability, and the d700 would be perfect if it cost what the d300s does new. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[petr_tyll]

<p>Thank you guys for your comments and responses! There is a lot to think about. I have to agree that it is not a good time to buy the D700 at the moment. I am thinking now about a crop plus 14-24 option. Hotel and restaurant interiors is acctually the area I would like to use it. May be I will buy a used D90, D300, D2X, D7000 plus the zoom and move to the FF camera when the D700 upgrade is out. The 4x5 film route would be a pleasure for me but I feel there are not many clients able to pay for it anymore. May be used Canon 5D mkI and Nikon 14-24 2.8 could get me to FF rightaway. My friend is using Leica 19mm 2.8 ROM with his 5D and it is stellar from 2.8, I hope the Nikon 14-24 2.8 will be up to it (but more versatile).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Petr (oh, and sorry for misspelling your name earlier) - if you're thinking about the Canon body/Nikon lens route, <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html">this review</a> (and others in the series) might be of interest. I'd point out that the 14-24 is a better 14mm lens than it is a 24mm lens (although there's less distortion at 24mm). If you're after manual lenses around the 20mm range, the Zeiss 21mm seems to be a bit special - but it's very expensive; of course, there's a lot to be said for the flexibility of a zoom. A 5D mark 1 may be slightly better than a D700 for landscape (mostly because the AA filter is weaker), but you'll obviously get more detail from a 5D2 - or, if you want a cheap route to the D3x sensor and don't care about systems, one of the full-frame Sonys. If you're looking at Canon, don't forget they have some very nice ultrawide tilt/shifts.<br />

<br />

Unless you're after very good low-light performance or shallower depth of field, though, I still think you'd save a lot of money and weight for very little difference in performance if you stuck to a DX body. There weren't any DX ultrawides when I got my D700 and 14-24 (although you could get to 20mm equivalent even then); there are, now.<br />

<br />

As for resolution... if you print an image and view it such that you get the same field of view that the lens presented to a camera (which in the case of 14mm means <i>from very close up</i>) - this means the image won't look distorted in the way that wide-angle images viewed from a distance appear - you need a <i>lot</i> of resolution in the middle of the frame. Under ideal conditions, using some quite optimistic estimates for visual acuity, I once worked out that I should be able to see the pixels from my D700 on any image shot with a lens shorter than about 60mm, if viewed with the same field of view as the sensor. It's about 40mm for a D3x. If you're just trying to "get it all in" and don't mind a distorted image, that's irrelevant, but filling a wall with an immersive image is beyond current sensors without a lot of stitching. Of course, most people can live with some distortion and poor lighting, and stand further back.<br />

<br />

If you just want to "get it all in" and don't care about distortion, have you considered a fish-eye? Failing that, stitching is not such a bad option these days.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>A third option: A Nikon D7000 and the Nikon 10-24. At 21mm this lens is a stunner on the DX bodies. Here you get 16mp instead of 12 and a damn excellent lens - along with a 100% viewfinder. Now you are set up for landscapes and you can also use filters - like a ND to slow the water down for that 4x5 look.</p>

[moi1]

<p>I have the 12-24mm NIkon on a D300 and it is a fabulous lens and extremely sharp!<br>

Just my 2 cents...</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>I've actually had the oportunity to test the nikkor 20 mm 2.8 D on my D700 and I was disappointed with it. Soft borders at open apertures, lots of chromatic aberration. I got the Sigma 20 1.8 instead and I'm very happy with it, although it's much heavier.<br>

If I were you I would buy the 14-24 along with a used D300, save some money and purchase the D700 follow-up, as it becomes available.<br>

Regards. </p>

[petr_tyll]

Thank you very much again guys! Excellent things to thing about! What do you think about Nikon 14 2.8 AF, I could

use with crop body and later as a ultrawide with FF? Later when I would save some more money I could by Zeiss

21mm and would be set in the wide area. Definitely I think I am gona go through the glass oriented path.

[janos_kovacs]

<p>Any combination which involves the 14-24 is a winner no matter if the body is FX or DX. Other lenses simply cannot compare quality wise with the 14-24G. Whoever owns it, knows it.<br /> Since there is no lowlight capability involved, the OP said he wanted a combo for landscape and architecture, I do not see the imediate advantage of the D7000 over the D300. So almost sure the D300 will do a fantastic job. Sometimes I use the 14-24 with the D300 and most of the time is wide enough and the quality is excellent.<br /> I have the Nikon 12-24 as well but that is a lense in a different class and so are the aforementioned ones. So instead of a D7000 with a 10-24 I would definitely prefer a D300 with the 14-24. But that's me.</p>

<p> </p>

[petr_tyll]

Thanks Janos, that's what I'm after, I will take your comment into account.

[r_parra]

<p>Hi Petr, I was in your same shoes a few of years ago since I only work in architecture/photography and was searching for the best possible image quality regardless of the format. I own both bodies/lenses and have used them extensively in the field so, given your budget, my short answer would be the 14-24mm and D7000 (i own this body too and the D300 is obsolete compared to it)<br>

long version: the 14-24mm is the best wide angle lens available for DX, period! absolutely nothing compares to this masterpiece in terms of sharpness from corner to corner, CA and contrast, I've tried the 16-35mm, 14mm, 12-24mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Tokina 12-24mm and the images made with 14-24mmare always superior by a long stretch. I always hear people saying that this lens is not for DX, that you would be under-utilizing it or overpaying for it since it is made for FX and you can get a DX specific lens for less... My guess is that these people have never taken a single picture with this lens, otherwise they would not make these types of statements.<br>

The 14-24mm lens is AMAZING on a DX camera when it comes to shooting interiors not only because you get the best possible image quality but because the zoom range (21-36mm) is perfect for this type of work, I used this lens with a D300 as my main kit for more than 2 years shooting interiors for architects/designers and about 85% of my wide images were in the 21-28mm range, the other 15% closer to 35mm, only on a handful of occasions I had to go wider than that and used the tokina 12-24. This type of work is more about being creative when composing the image rather than trying to fit everything in the frame.<br>

I now shoot with a D700 mainly because of the 24mm PCE and 28mm PC. I still carry the 14-24mm but use it much less now because on FX became too wide and the 24mm end is covered by the pc-e; the 14-18mm range requires a lot more control at the time of composing the image to avoid the exaggerated distortion and unnatural perspective that are trademarks of ultra wides. You also mentioned the 20mm lens but in my experience it doesn't perform as well as the 14-24 and the corners are usually much softer.<br>

The reason why I suggested the D7000 its because I also own one and find it to be superior to the D300 in terms of image quality, not only at low light but also at the native ISO, specially in the shadowed/highlight areas. In my experience the shadows on the D300 have a lot more noise and it’s easier to blow the highlights than with the D7000. Obviously the D300 is more rugged and considered a “pro” body I find all of this irrelevant when you use a tripod and the main thing you are looking for is to have the tools that can give the best image quality.<br>

I hope you can find my comments helpful good luck with your photography!</p>

[petr_tyll]

Dear R, your advice is priceless! Your comment exactly reflects my situation and actually substantiates my

"suspicion".

[petr_tyll]

Dear R, your advice is priceless! Your comment exactly reflects my situation and actually substantiates my

"suspicion". Thank you!