just order D700...what lenses to buy?

My equipment:

D-300.
D-70 Infra-red converted.
Nikkor 10.5mm F/2.8 G DX Fish-eye.
Tamron17-50mm F2.8
Nikon 50mm F1.8.
Nikon 135mm F2 AF DC.
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR.
Nikon 200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro.
Nikon 300mm F4 AFS.
Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
Nikon SB800 Flesh.
Kenko TC 1.4X.
Nikon TC-14EII.
Nikon TC-17EII.
Kenko Extension Tubes 12+20+36.
Benro C-228 Carbon-Fiber Tripod.
Gitzo G1348 Carbon Fiber Tripod
Manfrotto 488C0 Ballhead.
Wimberly head.
Markins Q3.

i need wide angle...

i think of sigma 15-30/nikon 18-35 and nikon 35-70. (second hand in 750$ for 2 of them).

do i have any other good options? not the 24-70....don't think it's worth the money.
regards,
Uri
--
you are welcome to visit my gallery in:
WWW.pbase.com/shualy

I would look at getting rid of the 17-50 and getting a 17-35 f/2.8. It is useable on both formats and an outstanding lense. Then everything will cross-over, with the exception of the 10.5.

Just my .02

Greg

If you want extreme wideness, and sharp results go with the Nikon 14-24. I have it with my D3, and hardly comes off it. Worth every dollar.
matt

I've got the 17-35, bought when it first came out, and the 14-24 bought recently. Both are great lenses, and both have very similar problems - like the weird edge stretch distortion on the outer edges of the frame. However, since getting the 14-24, the 17-35 isn't being used at all other than in situations where I don't want to change lenses and know that 24mm is not going to work for me.

Don't fool yourself. The 24-70 is a killer lens. Outstanding quality, fast focusing, etc. Worth ever penny and then some. You might as well not have such a great body unless you're going to use modern, high-quality lenses with it.

THe 14-24 is even better. Unbelievable sharpness and quality out to the corners. I used to shoot with the Leica 19mm 2.8 Elmarit - one of the best wide angle lenses around, and the 14-24 will match it at every focal length for sharpness and contrast, and it's distortion is very low. Extremely low for such a lens.

Otherwise, you might as well have a D90 or D3000 or D5000. Lenses are more important than cameras (although there's not nearly as important as back in film days.)

--
Eric

All cats are mortal.
Socrates died.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

You know, we are never going to end this argument, but there are plenty of users who would argue that that there are other lenses that give them BETTER results than the Nikon 24-70 at a fraction of the cost.

BUT -- that being said, the OP clearly said they didn't want that lens. It is absolutely inappropriate to tell someone not to delude themselves into thinking they don't want the lens. There would be just as many users here who would support the OPs opinion that it isn't worth the money.

I will personally chime in that with the list of lenses that you have, with the addition of a wide angle, for now I wouldn't get ANY additional lenses. Getting used to a full frame again if you used film NIkon cameras will take some shooting time to see what you really need.

You have a great collection of glass already. With the exception of the DX lenses which you should not bother using on your D700, you can play with your primes and other lenses and see what else you might want down the road.

--
I shoot with Canon Nikon and Sony so rest assured I'm no fanboy
http://www.pbase.com/aarif

I have the 14-24 and it is indeed a very special lens but it is by far my least used lens i find that it is just too wide for my taste on a FF camera and for me the 17-35 covers a more used focal range { and it is not too shabby a performer either}.

The 35-70 is a fantastic bargain as long as you get one in great condition , i have had mine since new and it delivers great results with my D3 and D700 , though i mostly use the 24-70 for the wider range and it is somewhat better { though at a price }. I would also suggest the new 50mm 1.4G as i find it is a step up from the old model
Jim

A great alternative for the 24-70 and excellent value for money; Tamron 28-75 2.8. I bought mine used but in excellent condition for Euro 200.

I like it. The 2 images were shot with D700 + Taamron 28-75 2.8.

1.



2.

uri1977 said:

do i have any other good options? not the 24-70....don't think it's worth the money.
regards,
Uri
--
you are welcome to visit my gallery in:
WWW.pbase.com/shualy

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

I was way, way skeptical about the 24-70, mostly because of a really bad mistake that I made, getting rid of my 80-200AFS when I got the 70-200VR. I traded a really sharp, really saturated lens that had an undefinable character to every image it produced, for a lens that seemed sharper, more contrasty, but produced images that felt cold. Don't really know how else to describe it. I shoot a lot of travel event stuff (like small village holiday celebrations in third world countries) and jazz portraits and performance publicity shots, and while it was great to have the VR, I found myself feeling like the images from the 70-200VR were missing something. Any emotional content seemed to be downgraded. Many of my much more financially flush friends waited to sell their 80-200, and ended up NOT selling them - they use the 70-200 when VR is needed, but the 80-200AFS for almost any shooting that is primarily people. Those with deeper pockets said the 80-200AFS was very "Leica" where the 70-200 was very "Zeiss."

I've shot the 28-70AFS since 1998 or so (too long to remember when I didn't have it) and other than having absurd amounts of flare in backlight, it was also a lens with some unexplainable character when photographing people. Also sharper than any zoom around at the time I bought it...

When the 24-70 came out, I wanted it because that 4mm means a ton in full frame world, and because I love backlit subjects and the 28-70AFS is a disaster in that situation. I was so afraid it would be "cold". I shot them side by side, both mounted to D700 and both mounted to d300. The 24-70 was a huge improvement in backlight, was sharper than the 28-70 (which was sharp enough that I got out of the habit of primes in that range other than in night shoots.)

I felt like I got ripped off when I upgraded the 80-200AFS to the 70-200AFS. But the 24-70 was a HUGE improvement on the 28-70AFS. I recently did the first baby pictures for a preemie, so light was really low, and was using the 24-70AFS, also the 50 1.2 and 85 1.4, and the shots from the 24-70 were without exception the best.

I kept my 28-70, mostly for emotional reasons (we've been through a lot together) and because the exterior it looks like it has been through a lot with me (rainstorms, sandstorms, mudstorms, icestorms, muggers, you name it). The 24-70 pretty much smokes it, though.

I'm hoping the new 70-200VR II is better than the 70-200VR. I'm haunting E-Bay trying to find a good copy of the 80-200AFS to buy, though.