squareformat

Kent Staubus, said, " Putting all you cash into a camera and then not having money left over is the classic beginner's mistake."

 

It may be, Kent, but I'm not a beginner. I've been taking photographs for 32 years, I've had stuff hung in international salons (although I haven't won a medal), I've had illustrated articles published in a range of magazines and lots of pics in newspapers, I have friends who are press photographers and can hold my own with them when they're talking photography (of course that's different from talking equipment).

 

I thought I'd better mention that in case other people think the same way as you and that influences their answers. Although why it should be automatically assumed that a person who posts a question to the forum is a beginner is a bit beyond me. Maybe most people are?

Peter,

 

There is a perfectly good reason why I'll be buying a full frame camera but I don't need to share that. I'm an experienced photographer, I know what I need and I've made my decision. I don't need advice on that otherwise I would have asked.

 

Neither do I need advice on whether a D700 or a DX body would be better for me, otherwise I would have asked. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

 

What I do need advice about - and sincere thanks to those who got this simple request and chimed in with some great comments - is whether there are any superwide zooms that would provide good quality results. That's why I asked.

 

Take a look at the post title: Good superwide zoom for D700? Anyone reading this in four years time will presumably be looking for on-topic information. You and Shun are about the only two contributors who have so far failed to offer anything that might be of value to a future reader. The only thing they'll get from you is your off-topic opinion.

 

Oh, and I liked this, "Pardon me for saying it, but it's almost like you're saying "I've made a not-so-wise decision and I don't want anybody to tell me why it's not-so-wise, just tell me how to use some mediocre product to make my foolish decision make sense." I don't want to oversimplify it, so please don't be insulted, but this is a major purchase and big decision, and you should, I think, welcome any perspective that will help you make it wisely, not just the ones you've filtered out for some arbitrary reason."

 

That's a level of arrogance that exceeds Shun's earlier comment. Well done.

Joe,

 

I'm warming to the 20mm prime idea.

 

I'll bet you're a really good photographer. It's guys like you who get out there and take pics with whatever they have to hand who produce the results. The ones who obsess over lens quality only ever seem to take pictures of their cats. A great picture taken with an average lens is always going to be better than an average picture taken with a great lens.

Rick,

 

The 20mm is a definite possibility. I'll need to have a look on Ebay to see what sort of money they go for. Thanks for

that.

Peter and Shun,

 

Why do you think I asked people not to say exactly what you said? I can do a helluva lot with a D700 and the 50. I

think everyone would be agreed that the 50 is a very nice lens. If I wanted, I could get by with the D700 and the 50.

Would you suggest I shouldn't do that just because I can't afford another expensive lens? Anyone with half a brain

knows you should put the best lenses in front of the best cameras. I really don't think it's necessary to point that out

to me when I raised the issue myself in my initial post. The plain fact is that I can afford the D700 and the 50. I like

shooting wide angles and wouldn't mind a superwide zoom which I'd like to be of decent quality but, right now, it

doesn't have to be the best. When I can build up some more funds, I'll sell the third party zoom (if I buy one) and then

purchase a better lens. Do I have to spell it out any further? If so, I'll do so off-forum so that I don't bore everyone.

 

And Shun, you should take a moment to consider what you're writing before you post as your comment, "When you

are making a choice that a number of us consider poor, we'll point that out. It simply does not make a whole lot of

sense to save for a high-end D700 but cannot afford some good lenses to go along with it" is very arrogant. If I'd

wanted to know whether or not it was a good idea putting a third party lens in front of a D700, I would have asked.

 

For the other guys who aren't hard of understanding, thanks for your suggestions, especially Elliot and Franco who

are on the same wavelength. The 24mm AFD is a good idea but I had a 20mm Nikkor years ago and liked that

perspective so I'm hoping to get something nearer that focal length.

 

I'd love to hear from anyone who's used a third party superwide they can recommend or any other suggestions along

those lines. If you just want to tell me I'm being daft, then please start your own thread and have fun. ;-)

I'm scraping together the cash to get a D700 with the 50mm f1.4. Since there won't be much money left after that, I'm

hoping to add a useful superwide zoom - 20-35ish - that will produce good results. Maybe a used Tokina or Tamron. I

could probably stretch to around £150 ($300 or so).

 

Please don't tell me that I shouldn't be using anything but top grade lenses with the D700 - unless you're willing to

send me a cheque. We're not all able to splash out on the best lenses all at once: some of us have to build up a

system slowly.

 

Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Has anyone had an answer from Guillaume? I emailed him days ago but haven't heard anything back. Maybe he didn't like my stuff (hey, there's no accounting for taste!) but I'm keen to know either way.

Bob's comment that it's impossible to make a living from microstock isn't entirely true. It's hard, no doubt about it, but there are people making a very good living from it. But you have to adopt a very professional approach and be prepared to work with models as its people shots that are usually the best sellers. From my own experience, I'd say that good shots with sales potential will make around $1 per month on average. For example, 3,000 shots of that quality might earn around $3,000 per month. The hard bit is finding the time and the creativity to amass a portfolio of that size and quality but it can be done. Whether that's enough for you to live on depends on the standard of living you want and the cost of living in your own country. It would be a nice supplement to an early retirement pension, for instance.

 

The world's top selling microstock photographer is reputedly Yuri Arcurs who made $64,000 from his microstock work in January alone. He works with a team of helpers and pays out around $11,000 in salaries each month and also has heavy overheads. Lisa Gagne is another making what seems to be a good living from microstock. The rest of us, I'm guessing, are making a reasonable part-time living from it or earning enough to buy the latest flashy camera. In between Yuri and us bottom feeders, there will be various tiers of income.

 

As for the best way of selling images, I'm not sure and I don't know if anyone is. The whole stock industry seems to be in a state of flux and there are lots of opinions as to how it will all work out in the end.

In response to an earlier post that said, "The demands for optical quality are pretty low for typical microstock photography.", Jim Tardio wrote:

 

"This is complete nonsense. If you have images to submit to microstock agencies they will be examined at 100%. They will be promptly rejected for excess noise, softness (that's not intentional), CA...even a tiny bit, artifacting from compression, poor lighting, excess distortion, blocked-up shadows, blown-out highlights...and we haven't even gotten to the reasons for compositional rejection."

 

You're bang on here, Jim. I didn't want to respond to the earlier post in case it fell into a discussion about microstock but now that this one has run its course, I can say that I couldn't agree more. The technical standards are also rising all the time. I just assumed that whoever posted about microstock didn't have much experience of it because if he did he'd realise that it is, in fact, quite demanding not just from a technical standpoint but aesthetically as well. It's a great form of photographic discipline because sloppy work will just not hack it.

Sincere thanks, everyone, for the input. Having read it all and weighed everything up, I think I'll probably get the

D700 with the AF 50mm f1.4 and add 20mm, 28 and 105 AI/S primes. I haven't done any manual focusing since my Mamiya Press days so that will be a laugh!

Lex,

 

Couldn't agree more about the need to work as efficiently as possible for microstock. Unfortunately, both cameras and lenses have a major say in that. A lot of time can be spent in post-processing to get rid of CA and noise. Choosing an outfit that minimises both of those can cut the workflow quite significantly. In fact, since we end up uploading jpegs, the ideal camera would be one that gives the best quality jpegs straight from the memory card. I'd always work in RAW if I thought I might need to do a lot of post-processing but a jpeg that is relatively untouched after emerging from the camera will be quite competitive quality-wise.

 

Is the Canon lens your friend has the 24-105? That seems to have a much better reputation than the Nikkor, whether for the reason you've cited or not.

Thanks, Lex. I've had a look at your folder and, to be honest, these files don't look any better than I'm getting just now with my Pentax K10D and DA primes - probably not as good, in fact. I'm going to see if I can do some direct comparisons between the K10D and a pal's D700 just in case I end up spending money with no - or marginal at best - benefits.

David,

 

In general use, I'd like focal lengths covering approx. 24-135mm. That would be fine for 95% of my stuff.

I do a bit of most things ranging from portraits to travel to studio to sports. The sports stuff is more wide angle to modest tele photography so I don't need long lenses with fast apertures. Thom's review of the 24-120 is another that kind of puts me off this lens. The 24-85 seems quite interesting, though.

 

Nick,

 

Thanks for offering to photograph the charts but I don't want to put you to any trouble. I think from the reviews I've read and what people seem to say about the 24-120 generally, it's not a great lens. I posted the question here in the hope that some people would step forward and say they find it perfectly good but that hasn't happened.

Hi Shun,

 

Aside from the maximum aperture issue, does the lens leave a lot to be desired from a sharpness point of view? I could live with f5.6 for the sake of convenience. If I'm wandering about a city all day doing travel stuff then convenience is well worth the sacrifice - as long as I can still produce good, sharp images. VR and the D700's good high ISO performance would help balance things out anyway.

 

If the 24-120 is a bit of a dog, can you recommend a lens for around $800 - £400 - that might be a good alternative. If Nikon made the equivalent of Canon's 24-105 L zoom for the same money, I'd get the D700 in a second. As it is, I'm still considering the Canon 5D.

This would be the perfect lens for a D700 for my microstock work but it seems to be pretty crappy as far as Nikkor

lenses go - at least from what I've read. Is it as poor as some people seem to say? Does anyone have a good word

to say about it? What are its weak points/strengths? Is it good enough to meet microstock standards? Sorry about

all the questions but I have a limited budget and don't want to buy a dud. Any help would be appreciated.

Elliot,

 

I have a Pentax K10D at the moment which is OK. However, the microstock agencies still complain about CA and noise. I shoot RAW at the lowest 100 ISO on the K10D but still run everything through Noise Ninja just to clean it up as much as possible. CA can be a real bugger: some of the agencies moan about it even when it's only visible at 200%. Who the hell needs to know what CA is like at that (pixellated) magnification? I think either the 5D or the D700 would sort the CA and noise issues out and save me a lot of time in post-processing. The bigger file size would be useful as well.

 

Shun's comment about the low value of my Nikkor lenses is correct but misses the point. It's not the value of these lenses that's important but how much I would save not having to shell out on new Nikkors!

 

In terms of lens quality and convenience, I'd imagine the 5D with the 24-105 Canon lens would outshine the D700 with my old primes but the D700 has some plus points such as the CA reduction thing, better viewfinder and clearer and sharper LCD. It's a bit of a dilema that could be easily resolved by someone sending me £300 by PayPal. :-)

Thanks for pointing that our Russell. I've had a good look through the answers and it seems that old non Ai Nikkor lenses will produce good results on the D700 once they've been Ai'd. Still not sure about CA problems, though.

 

My options just now are the D700 with my non-Ai lenses and a consumer grade standard zoom or the Canon 5D with the 24-105 L lens. They work out at about the same price.

I'm trying to make up my mind whether to buy a D700 or take advantage of some of the good offers at the moment on

the Canon 5D. One of the factors I have to consider is that I have three nice Nikkor primes that are non Ai. If I get

these converted to Ai, what sort of results can I expect? I send a lot of stuff to microstock libraries and I'm concerned

about CA and fear this might be a weakness. The lenses are the 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.5, all in mint

condition with the metal (i.e. no rubber covering) focus ring.

 

Am I right in thinking that on a D700 and converted to Ai, these lenses would give me aperture priority auto and

manual and bring up the focus assist in the viewfinder?

 

Bruce

Sorry, Marc. I should have accused you of having a "less than unbiased" approach.

Marc,

 

Why are you talking about "blaming" Modern Photography. That's a rather pejorative way to look at the magazine's findings and betrays a less than biaised approach, in my opinion.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I've taken the report of Modern Photography's findings on trust but I've no reason to believe they are inaccurate. It's not necessary to interpret anything: the db figures tell their own story.

 

"One of the authors of the original article, Jason Schneider, has probably handled more different types of cameras than anyone alive. I am sure that he would laugh at the conclusions. "

 

This may or may not be true but you've just done what you criticised the other website for doing - interpreting something you know nothing about.

 

"Click, burr. Click, burr. Snik, snik, snik. Which would you rather have?"

 

Given a choice, I'd like zippity-do-dah.

I'm a newspaper reporter who occasionally covers courts and I should know what the legal situation regarding street photography is in Scotland but I don't. I just try to use common sense and steer clear of any situation that could be miscontrued or interpreted in a different way.

 

It's a sad reflection on society but I'm not prepared to risk being labelled a pervert for taking pictures of other people's youngsters. I just avoid that whole scenario. As a general rule, I wouldn't take pictures of women on their own in quiet streets either (I have made one or two exceptions to this) although if it was a busy street I would.

 

I covered one case where a guy was convicted of a breach of the peace for following a woman and taking a picture of her with a mobile phone. I wrote about it on my blog here:

http://pentaxk10dblog.blogspot.com/search?q=court

 

In another instance, a guy was twice spotted photographing kids getting off a bus and convicted for a breach of the peace as well.

 

Although in an ideal world we would have the right to photograph anything in public I think we have to be sensitive to the real world and respectful of the points of view of other people-particularly parents of young children-even though we might not agree with them.

I can chip in with a Pentax Spotmatic, 35, 50 and 135 screw mount lenses, an MZ5 (ZX5) with 28-80 autofocus Vivitar and 50mm f1.7 M. There might be something else that I've forgotten.

 

What about having a Pentax forum camera (the Spotmatic?) loaded with film going from member to member around the world so that we get 36 or so images of life in other countries. It's been done elsewhere before but no reason why it can't be done again.

 

Bruce

 

http://pentaxk10dblog.blogspot.com/

"By the way, quite aside from the actual shutter noise, you do realize that the last issue of Modern Photography was in 1989, so even though the Modern labs were generally pretty reliable on what they actually reported, these data are perhaps just a little out of date. There may be people in this forum who had just been born then. "

 

Yeah, 1989. The dark ages. Makes you wonder how Oscar Barnack managed to calibrate anything back in the 1920s. Maybe that explains the Leica shutter noise! ;-)

 

"Have we talked about the fact that SLRs are also making noise when they close down the lens aperture when fired?"

 

It's true that there is some noise from the SLR lens stopping down but it's so slight that I doubt it would add anything to the peak db reading.

Douglas,

 

The level playing field I was talking about was just as far as the shutter goes. Obviously you can't frame and focus the shot on an SLR with the mirror locked up!

John,

 

I have owned a couple of Leicas in the past - an M2 and an M3 - but it was 22 years ago and I can't remember how they sounded now! What some people, including yourself, have said about the Leica making a softer sound makes sense and could explain why they are almost universally considered to be quiet. It's probably like listening to a string quartet and Metallica and at the same level and I know which one of those would sound noisier!