geoff_captain

<p>I LOVE my 14-24 and 70-200 on my <b><i>D300</i></b>... that being said, if I had the D700 I would kill for the 24-70.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture, so the 14-24 comes in real handy, but on FX (as I can see thru my film cameras) it is very wide. So for your question, I suppose I would go with the 70-200. Keep in mind the 70-200 is quite big at first to be an 'everyday' lens.</p>

<p>Perhaps the 85/1.4 instead? Perhaps with the 300/f4?</p>

<p>I'm a bit confused with your goal, but here's some ideas:</p>

<p>First, shoot raw, and don't worry about your in-camera saturation levels. IMHO Vivid is way too strong, especially for portraits. Shooting raw will enable you to have much more flexibility with your highlights and shadows after the fact if you're unhappy with the original exposures.</p>

<p>Second, a faster lens simply gets you faster shutter times and the ability to put the background even more out of focus with larger apertures. Overexposing would take slower shutter speeds, increasing the chance of your subject moving (but probably not to big an issue with portraits). You can adjust the exposure compensation either up or down, just make sure that you are keeping you histogram from maxing out on either end, especially the highlights. Once blown, you cannot repair those, even shooting raw.</p>

<p>Also, a problem with very fast lenses, is at the widest apertures (1.4-2.8) you can sometimes put a portion of your subject's head out of focus, especially when shooting close. Definitely a feature some use in certain situations, but I think often portrait photogs shoot around f4 to make sure their subject is fully in focus.</p>

<p>One more idea, buy the 50mm/f1.8. Very inexpensive, beautiful and fast portrait lens. I've been shooting with the slightly nicer 50mm/f1.4 for years, and it never ceases to stun me with its quality.</p>

<p>

<p>I was shooting Raw+jpeg and didnt' realize active D-lighting was on. At first I couldn't figure out why the jpegs looked to be exposed much better, and the RAWs came into Lightroom slightly underexposed. That's when I realized that D-lighting caused the camera to underexpose slightly, which does affect the RAW by default by giving it less than intended light to work with. Seeing that I shoot raw 99% of the time, I shut off d-lighting. Do I have this all correct?</p>

</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 and a 1.7 tele converter that I use on my D300. Works just great in decent light, don't listen to the naysayers. The only thing you have to be wary of is using maximums with the teleconverter on. I saw a great page somewhere where a guy tested this combo and explained it, but can't find the link.<br>

Anyway, by maximums, I mean if you have the aperture wide open (which I belive is 4.8) with the TC on, you can't zoom in completely, or you'll get some softness. Probably only to about the 170mm range. The trick simply is to stop down to at least f6.3 or higher, and presto, you can zoom all the way in with great clarity.<br>

Keep in mind, with this combo, you can have an 510mm equivalent focal length, and VR and focus still work just fine.</p>

<p>Actually, Ryan, I have found the latest releases of the camera profiles to almost exactly correct. I've shot Raw+Jpeg and compared the different profiles to the jpeg, and the "Camera Standard" is almost spot on.</p>

<p>And Tina, didn't your D700 come with Capture NX? Even if only the first version, this should open nikon shot raw files perfectly. </p>

<p>Definitely consider the 14-24mm f2.8. I use it all the time on my D300 as a walk-around 21-36 equivalent. Its very sharp, focuses fast and goes crazy-wide on fx (I've used it on my 35mm). Some people detract from it due to the lack of filter threads, but I haven't had any issues so far by shooting Raw.<br>

Nice and wide on the D300:<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/3130162662_e7ba5acaf0_o.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>