ShunCheung Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <p>I came fairly close to buying a D3 in September 2008. Earlier that year, I had a test sample for a month and wrote the review for photo.net, so I was quite familiar with the D3 already. However, as soon as I saw the D700, I decided to get the smaller body and also saved some money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <p>Me too... just arrived the D3 I asked for one, thinking to sell the D300 as soon as possible. After one week I decided to return the D3. Too big, too heavy, and the main reason, too expensive. The pics I took with the D300 were almost indistinguishable to those with the D300...<br> Lately with the D700 I learnt that the "only difference" was at 1600ISO. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <p>DIETER..... Well, not really conveniently, at that time I didn't know the D2Hs and D2x excited...... so they just din't come to mind.... and yes! I forgot the D3x, sorry.....</p> <p>OLIVER.... There you are... 2 FX bodies, D4 and D3X......</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>D4 and D3X</p> </blockquote> <p>$6000 and $8000, respectively - quite a lot of money for a hobbyist to spend on a camera body.<br /> I hope we never have to experience the furor that would be unleashed if Nikon cut back their camera bodies to 2 DX and 2 FX - especially if the price differential would amount to some $4000 between DX and FX. Unless they drop the low-end DX cameras altogether - but wasn't the D3100 the best selling DSLR in Japan last year? Maybe in a few years, the mirrorless will have replaced the low-end DSLRs (and maybe the entire DX camera field is mirrorless by then). Maybe there is then a 36MP FX camera at $2000 that one could use with good results even in DX mode.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjm photo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <p>The 24-70mm F2.8 AFS is a fantastic lens, no matter what camera I use it on, F4, D200, D700 - or for that matter any FX camera that Nikon introduces in the foreseeable future. Since acquiring this lens, new, two years ago, I have not had the slightest inclination to use any of my AIS lenses covered by this zoom. The 24mm AIS lens is excellent on the cameras mentioned but with the 24-70mm, why bother?.....maybe it is the Nano coating??? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 <p>Getting back to lenses, rather than cameras (I've been lurking on this thread until now), I don't believe anyone has suggested the 24-85mm AFS. I see where Ken Rockwell is quite enthusiastic about it. I know, I know, some don't feel he's a good reference. I think he's quite thorough and detailed, well worth reading. He feels the 24-85AFS is very sharp and has excellent AF accuracy. It's discontinued, so one would have to buy it used. It is more compact than the 24-70/2.8, and, I imagine, cheaper.</p> <p>Any comments, opinions, or flames?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 <p>The 24-85 AF-S is very soft at the 24mm end and has quite substantial barrel distortion. It is quite good towards the 85mm end, but the OP is looking for a 24mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 <p>OK I knew about the barrel distortion, but I didn't think Rockwell made it sound like it had softness problems at the wide end. Well, so much for that!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 <p>Hey, wait a minute. Rockwell does say the 24-85 is soft wide open. But it's the original 24-85, which he takes care to point out is inferior for that reason. The one he recommends, and the one I was referring to, is the 24-85 AF-s G, which replaced the original. Ilkka, I didn't realize you were thinking of a different lens, or I would have pointed that out to begin with.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 <p>Also Thom Hogan rates the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G (NOT the AF 24-85m f/2.8-4D, that's a different lens altogether) quite high: http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm.</p> <p>However, the AF-S lens is no longer available new, while the AF-D lens is....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 <p>True. He does like everything about it, criticizing only the lack of an aperture ring--it's a "G" lens, after all. He also rates the 24/2.8 AF N--the subject of this thread--very highly, commenting on its superb corner to corner sharpness; while several here have not been able to agree, based on their own results. I finally tried a practical test with mine (until then I'd always just shot with it, not tested it). I "tested" it handheld, since that's the way I generally shoot with it. I tested it with shots of a bridge here in St. Louis, the Eads bridge, that has hundreds of closely spaced steel members in an intricate gridwork pattern. It looked to me like the edge performance was nothing to write home about, so I may be in the majority in this thread. My Tokina 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 was better, at the same apertures. I'll have to try the Nikkor in other situations and see if I think it's worth keeping.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_wong2 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 <p>I don't have any opinions on the zooms that were listed, but I do own the 24mm f/2.8 AF and the 24mm f/1.4G. I picked up the 24 f/2.8 AF for the first time in a LONG time and it was so tiny and light compared to the monster 24mm f/1.4G. In fact, the f/1.4G is almost as heavy as my 28-300 lens and that one is a brick.<br> The photos are really great from the 1.4G but it was also really great with the 2.8. I've gotten really great pictures with both lenses. If you take night pictures, though, the 24 f/2.8 had a lot of coma in the corners. It wasn't until f/8 that it was completely gone. I haven't really tried the f/1.4G in the same situation, but I'm sure it won't be as bad.<br> My suggestion on the lens, if it's still an option, is to get the 24-120 lens, especially since you use the 24mm more often. I would normally suggest the 16-35, but you mentioned you probably wouldn't use the wider focal lengths.<br> Good luck!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Reading this whole thread, I conclude that the lens you want -- if you don't wish to spend $2300 or so -- is the 17-35mm f/2.8. Every problem that every other lens presents -- with the 24-70, that would be cost only -- the 17-35 does not have. Distortion is reportedly very low, quality high, size is large but not monstrous like the 14-24.... And used you'll get it for half the price you'd pay, even used, for the 24-70 OR the 24/1.4 prime. </p> <p>Or else for about $250 - $350 you can easily find the aforementioned AF-S 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED.</p> <p>Just to amuse myself I've just taken a shot in my office (and spare bedroom) with the following lenses, all set at f/4: <br> Ais 20mm f/3.5... AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G..... AF 24mm f/2.8D.... Ais 28mm f/2... and AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D </p> <p>Then I cropped them from 75-95 percent to give the same patch, a bit below and left of center, but not much. I'll post them below. Sharpest in the corners? Shockingly, the 20mm, though the vignetting is worst, so makes the sharpness moot, really. The rest about equal, the 24's better in the upper, rear corners than the 28's because of the depth from the point of focus. The 28mm f2 shows no vignetting at all. The 28-105 is about the same as 24-85. Slightly better is the 24/2.8. Now for center sharpness and color rendition and the like, here are the crops: </p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Next -- all photos are on the D700 shot at ISO 1600 f/4 and 1/20th. Viewed at 200 percent in the centers no evidence of shake in the pics selected as best at each setting.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Next -- all photos are on the D700 shot at ISO 1600 f/4 and 1/20th. Viewed at 200 percent in the centers no evidence of shake in the pics selected as best at each setting.</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Next -- all photos are on the D700 shot at ISO 1600 f/4 and 1/20th. Viewed at 200 percent in the centers no evidence of shake in the pics selected as best at each setting.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Next -- all photos are on the D700 shot at ISO 1600 f/4 and 1/20th. Viewed at 200 percent in the centers no evidence of shake in the pics selected as best at each setting.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>And I almost forgot!!! My newest acquisition! The much discussed AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED. Again, taken at f/4 ISO 1600 on the D700. At 24mm.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>To my eye, the sharpest are the AIs 28/2, which is not what the OP wants... and the AF-S 16-35 f/4, which perhaps IS what he wants. It's cheaper and lighter than the 17-35/2.8. Distortion is quite marked at 16mm but not so much at 20 and 24. Plus it's easily fixed in PS -- just plug in the lens.</p> <p>My other observation, utterly not surprising, is that except for the new and pricey 16-35, the primes are better than the zooms. </p> <p>So that's everything but the very best lenses, for what it's worth -- which was, in my case, one of those losses of time we love about photography. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>BTW, 16-35mm f/4 showed no vignetting at 20mm or 24mm; and was sharp in the corners. On the whole, the best of the lot. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raczoliver Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Thanks everyone. I am still reading the thread, but the replies weren't coming for a while so I did not check that often, but I'm still here, so thank you, everyone:-)</p> <p>In the end I'll just wait and give it some more thought, after all I am not in a hurry now, but you have all helped me with your answers. I will also consider the Zeiss 25/2.8, and I have not dismissed Craig Meddaugh's comment either, in which he suggests that I should get my lens checked out, as it should not be too bad of a performer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_wong2 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 <p>Truthfully I'd stay away from manual focus lenses like the Zeiss. I know that it might be the best lens this side of the Milky Way galaxy, but it's still manual focus. Focus is a lot more difficult, at least in the D700, mainly because there's no split image range finder or microprism. Also the area you actually view is very, very bright, but it's not easy to tell if your image is in focus. I'm not saying you CAN'T focus a manual lens because I do it all the time with the many that I have, but I'm saying it's more difficult. Also, your DSLR has autofocus, so why not buy a lens that takes advantage of it? All my manual lenses came from the past when I used to shoot film. All the lenses I've purchased since I got a D700, save the 180mm Hasselblad lens, have all been AF lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 <p><em>"(Manual f)ocus is a lot more difficult, at least in the D700, mainly because there's no split image range finder or microprism."</em></p> <p>With all due respect, in the lower left corner screen, in the D700's LED array, there is a little green ball flanked by two inward-facing arrows. This ball-and-arrow array will tell you if you're in focus with manual focus lenses just the same as it would with AF lenses:</p> <p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/ZD700VFCALLOUTS.PNG">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/ZD700VFCALLOUTS.PNG</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now