Lenses for D700... Never a decision was so hard

[Berzerker]

After a lot reading, unless I am doing a totally stupid thing, this is my lens buyng plan:

Now: D700 + nik 14-24 + tamron 28 300 vc (I will use it on vacation and "dangerous" or "light" trip)

later:

nik 24 - 70
nik 105 vr micro for portait & macro.

xxx 70 - 200 (where xxx is tamron or sigma, I don't think that 2000€ is fair for a lens, since I am not a pro)

sigma 150 - 500 if I have to... (birds etc.)

Any advice is useful... (i.e. as a first buy the 24-70 + 70 200)

Thanks for your patience

 

[Its me]

Never did I imagine that purchasing the D700 would lead me to re-think my whole lens lineup...I thought it would be easier than that. Nikon are a bunch of smart dudes, the camera is just the tip of the iceberg!

I agree with your choice of the 14-24 by the way. Great lens!
--
-Steve

 

[Amin Sabet]

I say start with the D700 and 24-70/2.8. 24mm is pretty wide, and the Tamron 28-300 does not offer great image quality.

--
-Amin
http://flickr.com/asabet

 

[Emil Varadi]

After a lot reading, unless I am doing a totally stupid thing, this
is my lens buyng plan:
Now: D700 + nik 14-24 + tamron 28 300 vc (I will use it on vacation
and "dangerous" or "light" trip)
later:
nik 24 - 70
nik 105 vr micro for portait & macro.
xxx 70 - 200 (where xxx is tamron or sigma, I don't think that 2000€
is fair for a lens, since I am not a pro)
sigma 150 - 500 if I have to... (birds etc.)

Any advice is useful... (i.e. as a first buy the 24-70 + 70 200)

Sorry friend, but I cannot understand why people buy the best and most expensive Nikon cameras and then go mate them with 3rd party lenses. This for me is a contradiction, but maybe that's just me.

I'd forget the Tamron 28-300. Sideline: on dangerous places losing a D-700 would be a disaster anyway. So I would neither take a D-700 to such places or better: not go there at all.

The 24-70 would probably get the most use on a D-700, so I'd buy that first. Then get the 14-24, but I like wide and also this is the best wide zoom in the world. Third: the 70-200 Nikon, not Sigma. You might also have the new version by the time you buy it.

The 105VR is a fine macro, but I'd rather use the 24-70 or the 70-200VR Nikkor for portraits.

For birding, sure, nothing is long enough and the largest of Nikkors are extremely expensive. So a Sigma can be the solution, but not sure about the 150-500. There could be better ones out there. But I'm not uptodate in third party alternatives.

 

[m_appeal]

Yes, I suppose it's an exotic lens... but still amazing quality...At the same time I would need a mid-range zoom, but I don't have the money to buy the 24-70 right now, and if I bought it instead, I would be lusting after the 14-24... So I'm considering other options...

I'm somewhat wary of buying Tamron based on the mixed revews. If you plan on getting the 28-300, I would test it before... Also, it's not a fast lens at all... and I personally would think it's a better idea to sacrifice the convenience of an-all-in-one zoom for overall quality/faster glass in several zooms/primes. For example, you could get a 70-200 Sigma 2.8 (yes, I realize it's Sigma, but I'm not sure there is such a huge difference, and the Nikkor 70-200 apparently doesn't perform too well on FF) and a cheaper midrange zoom along with your 14-24. Cheaper options include the 28-75 2.8 Tamron, the older Nikkors (28-70 and 35-70) and there is also a new Sigma 2.8 24-70 with HSM. I have no idea about the IQ of the Sigma and the Tamron, but they are cheaper options...as well as the oldie Nikkor 35-70... all of these are cheaper than the 24-70 Nikkor! I don't know fi you can afford buying a 70-200 Sigma with a cheaper mid-range though vs. the Tamron 28-300.

 

[Amin Sabet]

If you want the D700, the 14-24, and a less expensive standard zoom, then the following are generally well regarded:
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 (good value)
Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 (good value)
Nikon 35-70/2.8 (pro lens, limited zoom)
Nikon 28-70/2.8 (pro lens, not much less expensive than the 24-70/2.8)
Tamron 28-75/2.8 (good value, greater copy variability)
Nikon 24-85/2.8-4

I have the 24-70/2.8, but I still use the 28-105 a fair bit. It's a great lens, which sells for about $150 used.

Yes, I suppose it's an exotic lens... but still amazing quality...At
the same time I would need a mid-range zoom, but I don't have the
money to buy the 24-70 right now, and if I bought it instead, I would
be lusting after the 14-24... So I'm considering other options...

I'm somewhat wary of buying Tamron based on the mixed revews. If you
plan on getting the 28-300, I would test it before... Also, it's not
a fast lens at all... and I personally would think it's a better idea
to sacrifice the convenience of an-all-in-one zoom for overall
quality/faster glass in several zooms/primes. For example, you could
get a 70-200 Sigma 2.8 (yes, I realize it's Sigma, but I'm not sure
there is such a huge difference, and the Nikkor 70-200 apparently
doesn't perform too well on FF) and a cheaper midrange zoom along
with your 14-24. Cheaper options include the 28-75 2.8 Tamron, the
older Nikkors (28-70 and 35-70) and there is also a new Sigma 2.8
24-70 with HSM. I have no idea about the IQ of the Sigma and the
Tamron, but they are cheaper options...as well as the oldie Nikkor
35-70... all of these are cheaper than the 24-70 Nikkor! I don't know
fi you can afford buying a 70-200 Sigma with a cheaper mid-range
though vs. the Tamron 28-300.

--
-Amin
http://flickr.com/asabet

 

[photoforfun]

...tamron 28-300 is a good lens and its VC is @ least as good as Nikon's VR. I would call the 28-300 the perfect travel lens...

I had the 24-70 and I returned it because it lacks VR, too big, too heavy and it gives a lens shade until 42mm if you use the D700 PUFlash. I replaced it by the 24-85 F2.8-4. The 24-85 F2.8-4 is extremely sharp, @ least on pair with 24-70 even wide open, it's very compact and leight, it's focusing considerably slower as the 24-70 AF-S though and it exhibits more distortion as the 24-70 all over the F range... The 24-85 has a very handsome close up function as well, which I use a lot. @ 1/3th of the 24-70 AFS price, the 24-85 F2.8-4 is a bargain...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[m_appeal]

I'm just not sure if not having the 24-35 range would be limiting. Would I miss it? With the Tamron, I would get a wider lens, but I don't know it would measure up in IQ. It's hard to tell... so I would need to try it out. Opinions vary from "it simply doesn't measure up to nikkors" to "it's a bad sample". I have yet to see a comprehensive comparison of this lens to to others.The 28-70 was an option, but since I'm getting the expensive 50 mm Sigma 1.4 prime, I can't afford to buy that and the 28-70 zoom right now.

I was initially considering getting the 17-35, but it's less of a sure thing than the 14-24... and it's still fairly expensive. Great range to complement the 35-70, but I am not confident in its performance vs 14-24. I"d still want the 14-24 anyways.

 

[Berzerker]

Weel, let say That I agree with you, my plan is to buy everithing top line, but with right time:

even if I start now with a 24 - 70, what ahould I buy for 70 - up?

Nikon 70-200 vr ? NO WAY! I have seen how it perform on FF. OK it is better that sigma and tamron, and has vr, but it is very bad at the corner... AND IT COST 2K€!!! I will buy the revised vesion for sure, but meanwhile I want to shoot a "postcard" of my trip to Vienna, next december, and what lens should I buy? I think that the tammy 28-300 vc is good... Or maybe a nik 24-70 + nik 70 - 300???

 

[klh]

If you want top quality for postcard-like pictures look at primes, and move your feet.

Maybe the 135 f2.8 and the 185mm 2,8 prime

Finally, I think the 24-85g is a great low-weight inexpensive lens

 

[ianz28]

The optical formula for the 80-200 were built around using on F100/F5 etc and hasn't changed much over the generations it's been in production.

I haven't read any reports on the D3/D700 but it might be better and definitely more bang for your buck.

 

[sabesh]

Ken Rockwell seems to like it:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm

Cheers,
--
Sabesh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/

 

[BigBen08]

Weel, let say That I agree with you, my plan is to buy everithing top
line, but with right time:

even if I start now with a 24 - 70, what ahould I buy for 70 - up?

Nikon 70-200 vr ? NO WAY! I have seen how it perform on FF. OK it is
better that sigma and tamron, and has vr, but it is very bad at the
corner... AND IT COST 2K€!!! I will buy the revised vesion for sure,
but meanwhile I want to shoot a "postcard" of my trip to Vienna, next
december, and what lens should I buy? I think that the tammy 28-300
vc is good... Or maybe a nik 24-70 + nik 70 - 300???

While you're waiting for the new version of the 70-200 vr, you might consider the 70-300 VR. That's what I'm doing, as I just ordered it. It can be had for less than $500. At first I was concerned about its IQ, until I read these posts:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=29494509

 

[aran]

Quite easy !

D700 + Zeiss 35 f/2.0 and that's all !
Re-learning to move around the subject.

Great sharpness.

aran

 

[Magbarn]

Weel, let say That I agree with you, my plan is to buy everithing top
line, but with right time:

even if I start now with a 24 - 70, what ahould I buy for 70 - up?

Nikon 70-200 vr ? NO WAY! I have seen how it perform on FF. OK it is
better that sigma and tamron, and has vr, but it is very bad at the
corner... AND IT COST 2K€!!! I will buy the revised vesion for sure,
but meanwhile I want to shoot a "postcard" of my trip to Vienna, next
december, and what lens should I buy? I think that the tammy 28-300
vc is good... Or maybe a nik 24-70 + nik 70 - 300???

Depends what you're using it for. I use mine for mostly portraits and birding (With TC's) and it's still an awesome lens for FX. Landscape users would be irritated though, but I don't take tele landscape too often.

 

[[email protected]]

A superb lens optically and wide
enough for most situations.

I have the 14-24 but rarely use it.
I don't think a Tamron 28-whatever is going
to have the optical quality you are after.

My most used lens: 24-70/2.8
My second most used lens: 70-200/2.8

maljo

 

[svx94]

On the same boat but took a cheapy route for the wide end. I got a new 18-35mm, which does decent job. I am not a pro, and this lens seems do the job, cheap and light;

For the standard zoom, I hope Nikon brings up a 24-70/2.8 VR soon, or a 24-120/4 VR, or a 24-85/2.8-4 VR... I am losing my patient

I got both the 24-85 and 24-120VR, none of them are good enough. The 24-70/2/.8 is extremely good for me, but I do want the VR!

Cheers!

After a lot reading, unless I am doing a totally stupid thing, this
is my lens buyng plan:

Now: D700 + nik 14-24 + tamron 28 300 vc (I will use it on vacation
and "dangerous" or "light" trip)

later:

nik 24 - 70
nik 105 vr micro for portait & macro.
xxx 70 - 200 (where xxx is tamron or sigma, I don't think that 2000€
is fair for a lens, since I am not a pro)

sigma 150 - 500 if I have to... (birds etc.)

Any advice is useful... (i.e. as a first buy the 24-70 + 70 200)

Thanks for your patience

 

[Jogger]

The "poor" performance of the Nikkor 70-200 needs to be put into context. If youre shooting portraits with it.. there is no zoom and few primes that will beat it in that range.

Even, if Nikon came up with an updated version of the 70-200.. the only substantial improvement will be around the edges of the frame and less vignetting (bump the vignetting control to "H" and it goes away)... which is not an issue if youre shooting portraits.

Weel, let say That I agree with you, my plan is to buy everithing top
line, but with right time:

even if I start now with a 24 - 70, what ahould I buy for 70 - up?

Nikon 70-200 vr ? NO WAY! I have seen how it perform on FF. OK it is
better that sigma and tamron, and has vr, but it is very bad at the
corner... AND IT COST 2K€!!! I will buy the revised vesion for sure,
but meanwhile I want to shoot a "postcard" of my trip to Vienna, next
december, and what lens should I buy? I think that the tammy 28-300
vc is good... Or maybe a nik 24-70 + nik 70 - 300???

Depends what you're using it for. I use mine for mostly portraits
and birding (With TC's) and it's still an awesome lens for FX.
Landscape users would be irritated though, but I don't take tele
landscape too often.

 

[noirdesir]

even if I start now with a 24 - 70, what ahould I buy for 70 - up?

• 105 mm f/2 (very fine lens for people, alternative is 85 mm f/1.4), anything longer is for candids when for whatever reason you cannot get as close as you want. There are exceptions to that rule, naturally.
• 300 mm f/4 if you need reach and quality (while staying portable and affordable), but I would avoid buying any lens longer than 135 mm without VR

 

[Berzerker]

Just payed near 3700€ for a D700 + 24-70G...

Now I can't wait to have it in my hand...

Thanks all guys, for advices done and future!