Best quality/low expense lens for D700 (FX)

Started Aug 11, 2008 | Discussions thread
Two23 Regular Member • Posts: 175
Re: I totally disagree with your disagree

Steve Paradise wrote:
(1) > I own a "cheap" Nikon 300mm 2.8 AFS II with my D700 but when

traveling I don't want to lug around a 2.45 lb lens like the 24-70
2.8. The Tamron 24-135mm has great image quaity , more range , and
less than half the weight of your 2.8 bazooka.

(2)Not to mention your

high quality 24-70 was designed for FF and not a "cheap" camera like
the D90. 24mm with a 1.5x sensor just doesn't do it for me at the
wide end.

(3) With a D700 2.8 is

irrelevant because the high iso image quality blows away the D200 and
D300 IQ and I owned both.

(4) > I do agree that lenses hold their value more so than camera bodies

but I can guarantee you that you will be upgrading your D90 well
before I upgrade my D700.

(5)> When you buy your D90 post a shot with your 24-70mm 2.8 at iso 6400

and I will I do the same with my cheap Tamron 24-135mm and lets see
which image looks better.

(6)> Finally...I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion but

found your choice of words somewhat offensive. Remember we all
RESPECTFULLY reserve the right to disagree on this forum. Steve P

-- hide signature --

1. The point is you DO own expensive glass. You don't normally just use cheaper stuff on it. You understand the limitations of mediocre glass. Many others don't seem to.

2. I do not have the 24-70. I have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. Both are outstanding and beat the older Nikons 18-35mm and 28-105mm handily. I have them also. My plan is to buy a Nikon 24-70 along with a 14-24mm f2.8. All of that will be in place before I ever buy something like a D700. Meanwhile, the price of the D700 will drop like a rock.

3. The f2.8 is still very relevant. Pro lenses aren't just fast, they also give better image quality in flare resistance, constrast, distortion. You are aware those factors do come from the LENS, not the camera. And here's another factor you might not have thought of. For you to compensate for the low speed of an amatuer lens you had to spend $3,000. I only have to spend $900. I have much less $$ tied up in photo gear that quickly loses value.

4. I can buy three D90 class cameras for every D700. My strategy though is to simply continue upgrading lenses and lighting system, slowly replacing DX lenses with the absolute best FX lenses available. While I am doing that, the camera will drop in price by hundreds of dollars, maybe even a thousand. I can keep the D90 as a back up, or sell it for most of what I paid if sold before the next model comes out. Bottom line is I have better quality images for less money tied up.

(5) That's the whole point. I dont' NEED ISO 6400. Ever. I use 660ws or 1360ws monolights/battery packs, radio triggers, plus ten Nikon SB-28 flash and can actually shoot at ISO 100 if I wanted. I still shoot my 4x5 field camera some too. I am a mainly night photographer, outdoor landscapes & trains, small town scenes. Why would I pay for ISO 6400 capability that I won't use? When you shoot the Tamron at f5.6, I can be shooting the Nikons at f2.8 and ISO 1600, well within good quality image range for that sensor. And, I will be doing it for less money tied up. Also, the Nikons will give far less distortion and flare (from train headlights) than the Tamron. My image quality will be better at same shutter speed, and ultimately it is shutter speed I am concerned with and not ISO. If I needed "more", instead of spending the $$ for an ISO 6400 camera it would be cheaper for me to simply buy another monolight. Bottom line is a top quality Nikon shot at f2.8/ISO 1600 is still going to beat a Tamron f5.6 shot at ISO 6400 on a D3 on total image quality. With a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on a D90/ISO 1600 I would be getting something like 1/250 shutter speed even down inside a subway tube. The 30 f1.4 is a ton cheaper than the D700 to get the results I want. I will likely end up buying a refurb D3 or a used/refurb D700 at some point. The price will have dropped dramatically (look at the Canon 5D). When I do buy it, I will have first class lenses, have spent less money, and will have been selling high quality images all along. Make sense? This is my whole point.

6. A good point. I am enthusiastic, but was not flaming anyone personally. I find the whole idea (wasting money) as very frustrating. Maybe it's a pet peeve, I don't know. I am a practical Midwest guy that hates wasting money.

BTW--totally agree with your little sig line about rather makie 1 good photo than 20 so-so ones. When I shoot a 1,000 frames, I would gladly trade 999 good ones for one "grabber". If I make 5 "grabbers" a year, I am happy. I live for those!

Kent in SD

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow