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

--

...when you get the D700 dialed in you won't regret the combo you have on order. My 24-70 is my bread and butter lens on my D700.....an excellent combo.

I lost track but I think I now have something like 17+ Nikon mt lenses, most by Nikon. And over the last 10 years or so I have bought and sold quite a few other Nikon and non Nikon lenses.

My own take on which lenses to have is that it is better to have a focal length covered by a good or better lens than not have a FL covered. That said, for anyone trying to build a broad coverage lens inventory at affordable prices I would recommend

Sigma 12-24 FX (mine is great on my D700 as it was on my Kodak SLRN)

Tamron 28-75/2.8 (tested nearly as good as my Nikon 28-70 2.8 at fraction of size, wt, and cost)

Nikon 70-300 VR IS (about as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 VR IS at a fraction of cost or wt.)
Nikon 24-120 (great walk around lens with VG quality images)

The Sigma 12-24 aperture is not 2.8, but with the incredible high ISO capability of the D700, No Big Deal.

My standard walk-around / travel combo is a Nikon 18-200 on my D200, and the Sigma 12-24 on my D700. Are there some better lenses for some of the covered focal lengths? Sure, but they are generally only very modestly better, much heavier, and one can miss a lot of shots or drop a lot of lenses or get a lot of dust on sensors changing to a "better" lens when a shot presents itself.

Because we're not pros

I would take a d700 with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
over a d300 with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8

johnchap2 said:

johnchap2 wrote:
Nikon 70-300 VR IS (about as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 VR IS at a
fraction of cost or wt.)

Click to expand...

Thx for endorsing this. I already have the Canon version of the 70-200VR, and was looking for an alternative solution for the D700 as the 70-200VR is rumoured to be replaced soon.

Do you have an samples that display the 70-300VR's Bokeh by any chance?

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

nik 14-24
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

Use the other 200 bucks for a warranty. This is what i'm doing but i don't shoot birds

Berzerker said:

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

Click to expand...

I never thought I'd use the 14-24 as much as I do now. It has fundamentally changed the way I look at photo ops now.

I will say, however, that when I'm using the 14-24, it's 95% 14 and 5% non-14 (15-24)...so if you can't afford the 14-24, get a good prime closer to 14 and you won't miss the extra reach AT ALL. Of course, for an extra $200, I'd probably just go with the 14-24 instead of the 14. And, of course, there's something about the 14-24 that just oozes quality--bright and contrasty colors, clean edges, etc.

Here are some shots with the 14-24 on my D700, ISO 200-1600, min PP:











Rest of the gallery can be found here:
http://www.keoniahlo.com/gallery/6063461_dBTKS#380197136_Rd9Sv

Aloha,
Keoni

...we will not have to fight over it. ;-)
Glass still comes first in all possible meanings of the word.

ChadVeno said:

Because we're not pros

I would take a d700 with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
over a d300 with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8

Click to expand...

--
Overexposure happens.

What focals lengths do you like to shoot with the most?
Buy the lens that fits your shooting style and add the less used ranges later.

--
If you have a moment, check out my site:
http://zotsandboo.com

17-35 f/2.8
85 f/1.4
180 f/2.8
300 f/4
--
-Kent

Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten

From Thom Hogan's D700 review:

"Tooling around. When I'm in foreign cities walking around (waiting for the plane that'll take me to wilderness ; ), I need flexible.Right now that's a D700 with a Tamron 28-300mm, which has turned out to be far better optically than I'd expected.Too bad I've got DBS problems with it. "

Exactly my findings as I wrote when I purchased this lens back in july http://www.fotografie.fr/n5-080715-D700&tamron28-300VC-e.htm Simply a great all purpose lens. Thom mentions about a issue as DBS, until now I didn't experience that, lucky me...

Now Thom Hogan says 28-300VC is optically far better as what he expected, some who comment everything without trying will probably change their minds...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/

I still don't understand the point of using a 600$ lens on a 3000$ body. Safety? You are lugging around 3600$ value. IQ? The lens is a 600$ one, and usually YGWYPF. Don't know... If I had 3600$ to spend, would most probably be a 300 f/2,8 with a D60
--
Overexposure happens. And, by the way, Nikon, that threehundred f-four VR, when?

I find the 24-70 2.8G to be very sharp indeed, but has surprisingly high levels of distortion at the wide end.

I also find the loss of reach moving from a D200 a shame, and I don't like the corner distortion you always get at 24mm that you get with all wide angle rectilinear lenses (eg circles become elipses)

I would recommend the 50-500 "Bigma" over the 150-500 if you can deal with the weight. I've read repeatedly that the former is sharper.

I can understand taking a D700 with the Tamron 28-300, contrary to other posters. Being able to do it all with a camera with great high iso performance means you have the ultimate in flexibility.

If you want to save money on the tele end, do consider the Nikon 70-300VR

And finally, don't be tempted by the 24-120. It's very soft in the corners even at F14! }:-(

Dave

Berzerker said:

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

Click to expand...

Sometimes I'd rather give up some optical performance and carry a little over 1 lbs on one lens than carry over 5 lbs worth of glass + TC with a 24-70/70-200 2.8 combo.

I should mention, though I WOULD NOT have the Tamron as my only lens. For my type of shooting if I could only have 1 lens would be the 24-70 2.8...

If your point is saving weight, (which is terribly important in many cases), then the D700 isn't the first choice, is it?
--
Overexposure happens.

Markogts said:

I still don't understand the point of using a 600$ lens on a 3000$ body.

Click to expand...

Nikon doesn't have a FX lens with that focal range, and sometimes it's very handsome. That's why the 18-200 was so popular and that's why Canon has a 28-300 for their FF cameras as well. Sometimes I don't want to lug around with several lenses and sometiimes I get the picture with my 28-300 while you'll be changinge lenses...

What I don't understand is that some people tend to relate price of a lens with quality rather than try out less expensive solutions. A 50mm F1.8 is one of Nikon sharpest lenses and costs 100$... An inexpensive lens can be optically VERY good...Another exaple is the "old" 28-105. It costs 150$ used and 300$ new if you can find one and it's one of the finest, sharpest and best distortion control lenses you can find for FX, it's way better as the 24-120VR and about sharpness it's very close to 28-70 F2.8...

TMHO snobbery is often involved in expensive lens purchase, rather than the real need to have it or to use the extremes of those exclusive lens designs.
Just my thoughts, nothing meant personally...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/

Snobbery? For me it is exactly the opposite: I care for every penny I spend, and I want to get the best value for money from the combinations I buy and use. I know exactly how well "cheap" primes can perform, I own two of them. But of course they are primes. Comparing zoom to primes isn't fair.

What do I get more in terms of IQ from a D700+28-300 compared to a D300 (or even a D60) with the 18-200? Better high ISO performance, for sure, but that's all. Sharpness and contrast would be the very similar, and in daylight use no advantage at all. For some 1500$ difference.

If I want something handy to carry everywhere, DX still has a lot of advantage. The day I'll go for FX, I'll do that for IQ reasons, and lenses will have to have comparable IQ.

That's my point, no snobbery intended.
--
Overexposure happens.

My take on this:
Bodies come and go, lenses are here to stay..

go for the best lenses- and that's Nikon lenses - period
--
regards
JoeM

Berzerker said:

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

Click to expand...

You mention the 105 VR; that is an excellent choice to complement the 24-70. For a longer lens, get the 180/2.8 AF-D. All of these lenses are excellent.

The 14-24 is a special-purpose lens, which I am not even considering even though I have 20 lenses, none of which are shorter than the 24mm PC-E. I shoot a lot of architecture etc. but I don't need a 14mm lens.

Berzerker said:

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€!!!

Click to expand...

I understand that you want to pass on the current version of the 70-200. If you need to have a zoom, buy the earlier 80-200/2.8. These are very good and not that expensive 2nd hand.

Or get the two primes I mentioned: the 105 VR and the 180.

Berzerker said:

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???

Click to expand...

Nikon 70-300 is "ok" but not great, I would expect the Tamron 28-300 to be much, much worse. The greater the zoom range, the worse the image quality. A reasonable guideline for lens selection, though there are a few exceptions.