Need some modern lenses for my D700

[lahuasteca]

<p>Currently I have a D700 with an older 28-105 zoom, plus a bunch of primes, both MF and AF (but not AFS). For various reasons I've decided to stay with the D700 until when/if Nikon comes out with a mirrorless FX. I'd like to simplify the travel kit and get some lenses with VR/AFS. Here's what I come up with - 24-85 VR and 70-200 f4. The 24-85 VR is about $300 LN- at KEH, but the 70-200 f4, new, about $1400 or so. There's the 28-300 all-in-one, but I'm not really interested. I rented the 70-200 f4 previously with spectacular results and really want that lens. Am I on the right track with the 24-85 VR replacing my 28-105? I've read mixed opinions on both the 24-85 and 24-120, but for the price difference am leaning towards the former. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd opt for the 24-85VR if I would be sure I always carry it together with the 70-200, and/or if you know you're not working much between 85 and 120mm. Every review seems to find the 24-85VR and 24-120VR are very evenly matched in optical performance.<br>

For the record, I do not have the 24-85VR myself, but the (current) 24-120VR instead. It is a serious good lens and I'm satisfied with it, but it is rather expensive, large and slightly heavy (but I like the extra bit of range compared to 85mm, its 77mm filter size).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 28-105 is soft at the long end of the zoom range. Lenses that you mention such as the 24-85 VR and 70-200/4 would certainly be good choices. The 24-85 VR is a very good lens for the money though it has some softness at the very edges/corners of the frame (that you can solve by choosing primes or the 24-70/2.8) but overall quality is good. The 24-120/4 is of similar overall quality as the 24-85 VR but it is more expensive (5x range and constant f/4 explain the price at least in part). The 70-200/4 is excellent.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you'd wait for a camera (system) that may or may not ever come. Nikon seems to be focused on the FX DSLR system at the moment which is where they have strong roots. If you're specifically looking for a mirrorless camera in the near future then I would in your place choose one of the brands which are focused on making mirrorless cameras.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Your lens choices sounds logical, but I think Nikon's best camera for travel is the D5200. Much smaller, has video, has that nifty swivel screen, and the excellent sensor from the D7100.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"If you're specifically looking for a mirrorless camera in the near future then I would in your place choose one of the brands which are focused on making mirrorless cameras."<br>

Actually, as I write, I'm just packing a Panasonic GF1 and associated lenses off to KEH. I never liked the color or the slowness of the system. I had the optional very tiny EVF, didn't like it either. What I did like was the small size and lack of mirror, but the IQ was nowhere near even my Nikon D80 with a 16-85 lens. I'll wait for mirrorless to mature and go to full frame before making the transition. FWIW, I do have a Panasonic LX7 p&s, and it's just that, but the optional EVF is excellent. For large body it will be the D700 and for small, the LX7, when traveling.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"</p>

 

<p>Your lens choices sounds logical, but I think Nikon's best camera for travel is the D5200. Much smaller, has video, has that nifty swivel screen, and the excellent sensor from the D7100."<br>

Kent, yes, I'm going through a big internal self-debate on what system for travel. Did not like m 4/3. I have both Nikon DX and FX - maybe just get a Nikon D5300 or even 7100 with the new 18-140 lens and call it a day. But I still compare everything I shoot to film days - subject isolation, blurred backgrounds, and all that, still have my primes - I'm leaning towards new lenses with AFS for my D700. I long for the old days when it was an FE2 and two or three primes! I'm getting older, and I'm not so good at MF any longer; thus the need for AFS.</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Sony now have 2 full frame mirror less bodies the A7 and A7r it could be worth for you to check them out before buying any new Nikon glass. One of the Sonys could be just what you were looking for. I sold off my fuji X-E1 to get a D800. I just didn't like the EVF on the X-E1, could be interested in the A7 though if the EVF really good as a platform for my Ais Nikkors.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 70-200/4 will not disappoint you in any way. However, the 70-200 will cause you to be somewhat disappointed in the 24-85G-VR. Other than the 24-70/2.8G, Nikon does not really have a superlative zoom in that range. But, the 24-70 is a such a big honker, it's kind of a drag to deal with (especially with the hood in place). A combination I really enjoy is the the 35/1.4G and 24-70/4G-VR.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Gene said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>For various reasons I've decided to stay with the D700 until when/if Nikon comes out with a mirrorless FX . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's a prudent choice. Stay with your <em>full-frame</em> D700, and enjoy the benefits of an FX sensor for as long as you like. I have the 24-120mm f/4.0 VR, and it's a great all-around lens, but due to is f/4.0 aperture, I generally only use it flash-fired. For vacation use, I recently bought the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR. Although the ultra-wide end of the lens is a lot of fun, I mainly use it for daylight-exteriors only, again, due to its relatively slow aperture (I paired this with the slow, but excellent, 70-300mm VR, which I bought as a refurb for only $350).</p>

<p>But, if I had to choose just <em>one</em> lens (besides your 70-200mm f/4.0), it'd probably be the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It's my favorite short lens on an FX body, and I typically shoot this all in available-light.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 70-200/4 isn't that much smaller or lighter than the 24-70/2.8. That pair shouldn't be too heavy to carry, but the 24-70 is expensive.</p>

<p>A 24-70/4G VR? </p>

[Two23]

<p>As my wife & I have gotten older (with better jobs,) we travel more. Years ago I was going to places like Hawaii and Bavaria, carrying a full medium format system with me. It was heavy and the single focal lenses really slowed me down (NOT a good thing on a family trip.) I ditched that for an F5 and carried about six Nikon lenses. The F5 was like carrying around a concrete block--it just didn't fit my style. I've finally ended up with a D7100, which I like because it's small. Any more, on trips I only take two lenses and a flash. The lenses are Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 and 80-400mm VR, Travel Angel tripod. This is a very versatile but still compact camera bag. However, on recent trips (Hawaii, Scotland) I've been bringing an old Leica with lenses 28/50/90mm. Even though it's 70 years old I've been using it for about half the shots. The main reason is it's LIGHT and compact. I just don't enjoy carrying around bulky heavy stuff any more, and honestly I just don't see much if any difference in image quality. The D5100 I've been using for local/regional travel is a nice size and does all I want. I've actually been leaving the D7100 at home and just bringing the d5100. What I've been learning over the past two decades is that the camera gear seems to make the least amount of difference in my photography. Compactness and flexibility trumps raw image quality every time, partly because there's much less difference in quality now. The D5100 with two lenses is giving me more speed, more flexibility, better quality than the medium format system I used to haul around 15 years ago. I try not to get hung up on the gear itself, but instead concentrate on how I use it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[studio460]

<p>Kent said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Any more, on trips I only take two lenses and a flash . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, I'm all for traveling lighter on vacation. On my last trip to Hawaii, I also carried only two lenses, and one flash (16-35mm VR, 70-300mm VR, and an SB-600). However, I would <em>love</em> to switch out my "vacation package" to just a Nikon Df, two primes, and a new Nikon SB-300 compact Speedlight instead.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>On a D700, I wouldn't rule out a 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G. It's cheap (though discontinued), light and flexible. It's nothing like in the optical class of the 70-200 f/4, and it doesn't really hold up on a D800, but it stayed on my D700 as a walk-around lens/body cap - and used carefully it's surprisingly good, without being anything like as big or expensive as a 28-300. I'm sure there are other options that are optically better, I'm just pointing out that this lens is a bargain for the performance you get. With my D700, I walked around a lot with a 28-200 on the camera in a toploader bag, a 50 f/1.8 in a little carry bag on the strap, and a 135 f/2.8 AI-S in the front pocket - that covered me for anythnig but very wide angle, and I had options for low light and the occasional portrait. Sadly, the 28-200 isn't such a useful option on a D800, so I end up carrying more.<br />

<br />

Just to be clear, the 24-120 f/4 is reasonably well-regarded, if a little expensive. The 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 is cheaper and, by all accounts, not very good. Don't mix the two!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Those are both great lenses for a D700. The kit wouldn't be very light for travel but you'd be getting excellent images so long as your bag shoulder holds up :) The 70-200 f/4 is a fantastic lens. The 24-85 looked great on my D700. It didn't stand up as well to the D800 when I upgraded, but on the D700 it's top notch and at the current prices it's a no-brainer.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I switched from the 28-105 to the 24-85 (non VR) and it was an improvement. Then to the 24-120/4, and it was another improvement, too. The 24-70 is a better lens but not as versatile as the 24-120/4. I also use a D700.<br /> If I were buying again, I`d give a try to the 24-85VR, or I`d repeat with the 24-120/4. The smaller size&weight and cheaper price of the 24-85VR could make it preferable over the 24-120/4. But the longer range and overall quality of the later makes it a perfectly good choice for travel and as an all round lens (as Ralph says, the 24-120/4 with a flash will let you to get the best of it). Another advantage is that the extra range from 85 to 120mm makes the 24-120/4 useful for casual portraits. <br /> So either choice could be good to my taste... if you like to go with just one lens, the 24-120/4 could be right, if you don`t mind to carry with two lenses, probably the 24-85 and 70-200 combo will give you better performance.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I replaced a AFS 24-85 non VR and 24-120 f3.5 VR lens with the 24-85VR. The new 24-85 produces awesome images on my d700. </p>

[duane_creviston]

<p>I just upgraded to a Nikkor 18-200 VR ll-+ zoom lock and love it. Still have a 18-10 VR, & a 70-300 VR, but always seemed to have the wrong one on my d7000. In one week from right now, we will be on a 'doors off' helicopter flight over Kauai. Kind of surprised no one here mentioned the 18-200 VR ll lens. in this discussion.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Duane, nobody mentioned the 18-200VRII because it is a DX lens, and the OP is using a full frame camera. Second, the 18-200-like all-in-one zooms are convenient, for sure, but in term of optical performance, they will not match the lenses with less range. Compare images from your 18-200 to the 70-300, I bet the 70-300 will easily deliver a lot more resolution. Now, it's a matter of where your priorities are, and the convenience of 11x zoom sure can be tempting, but that doesn't mean it's an ideal lens for each and everyone of us (and some do not mind changing lenses, and/or anticipate more which lens they'll need - it's also a matter of shooting style and subject).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wouter: Well, I <i>did</i> mention the 28-200. :-) A D700 isn't all that demanding on lenses, although there's no doubt that a better lens will be an improvement on any camera, so I found the 28-200 to be acceptable for a walk-around zoom, especially given its lack of weight and price - if used within its limits (it's surprisingly good for what it is, but then expectations shouldn't be all that high). Trade flexibility a bit (though there's a lot to be said for 24mm vs 28mm) and the 24-120 f/4 is undoubtedly the better option, but it's four times the price of the 28-200. The FX equivalent of the 18-200 (though probably a bit better in quality) is the 28-300, but Gene already ruled that out. Anyway, I'm not saying a 28-200 is a perfect option, just another to consider, especially in a light-weight walk-around kit. It really won't do a D800 - and possibly not a D610 - justice if the D700 gets upgraded, though.<br />

<br />

The 18-200 on a 16MP D7000 is probably more limiting in image quality than a 28-200 would be on a 12MP D700. Honestly, I would expect its limitations to be pretty evident on that camera (though not as much as on a D7100 or one of the other current DX bodies) - you're almost better (or at least, it's less work) cropping from a shorter zoom with better optics. The 18-200 was a pretty good option for a 10MP camera, but it's necessarily compromised.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I am also considering 24-85VR for FX as I already own the 70-200f4. The latter may be smaller than the 2.8 lens but it's not really small and light enough to pocket on a business trip, for example. I'm not sure there is a good lightweight FX telephoto zoom for travel. Often I take 28-105 and CV 180f4 (manual focus). If you own a prime such as this or perhaps Nikon 200f4Ais you could consider 24-120VR + telephoto prime. With the 24-85VR the question is what to accompany it with when you don't want to take 70-200f4. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nick: Well, if you want to pocket, there's the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6, at 194g. I've yet to test mine on the D800 to see how it holds up. It was fine on my D700, but so was my 28-200, so it didn't get used much because I liked having the extra 120mm. I believe it's literally taped together. I generally put it on my F5 to freak people out with the autofocus speed. Worth a look, and at least it wouldn't cost much. Just don't sneeze on it (or scratch the front).</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Oh man, my post on the first page was a typo that I can no longer correct.</p>

<p>I meant to say that 35/1.4G and <strong>70-200/4G-VR</strong> is a combination that works well for me.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"Sony now have 2 full frame mirror less bodies the A7 and A7r it could be worth for you to check them out before buying any new Nikon glass. One of the Sonys could be just what you were looking for. I sold off my fuji X-E1 to get a D800. I just didn't like the EVF on the X-E1, could be interested in the A7 though if the EVF really good as a platform for my Ais Nikkors."<br>

Hi Stuart,<br>

Thanks for the idea on the Sony. I did check it out and it sounds very interesting. Sometime in the future, maybe a year from now, when the introduction bugs have been worked out, and new lenses are available, I will seriously consider it. Right now I'm pretty sure I'm going with a 24-85vr lens for walkaround with my D700. <br>

Gene</p>