D700 portability

oscador said:

Would the 24-120mm be a good compromise for when I just need one lens on the body or would that be taking a leap back in IQ to the D80 + 18-200mm??

Click to expand...

As profsr1 writes above, I second the 28-105 as a walkaround if you don't feel like hefting a 24-70. Primes are the business though, and here I'll second Leswicks suggestion of the 105/2.5. For me the fun evaporates proportionately to the weight going up, and big zooms are cumbersome and delicate. I'd take the 28-105 in broad daylight if I needed the flexibility, or one or two primes if I wanted to come home with delicious pictures. It's hard to leave the house with just one lens, but it often pays off.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8189967@N04/sets/72157616447984719/

Well, you'll want to do some reading on that lens - do a search here - and be aware that there seems to be a HUGE amount of sample variation on the 24-120. It's a pretty good lens for walk-around and it's light if you find one that is good. I don't believe there is such a thing as "a step backwards" despite what the lens snobs say.

Other really good lenses for walk-around that are lightweight:

The Superb Tamron 28-75 2.8

The Good Tamron 28-300 VC - some sample variation here too, and it's a loud "whirry" lens since its internal motor seems to fight the D700s motor and you end up with a lot of noise, also some searching in low light and from 270-300, but it's VC and overall is very sharp and has good color saturation and it's the only lens comperable to an 18-200 on DX (It's better than the 18-200 from personal experience with both). Much sharper.

For Nikon's I'll say the 38-105 is very good as a walkaround lens, and it has macro capability. Plus there are thousands of them out there used and still new and you can pick one up for about 200 bucks. It's only sharp from about 5 and up...

The Nikon 24-85 G is also very good, but finding a cheap one anymore is not easy -- for awhile you could buy them lightly used or even new for about 250 -- now the going rate on eBay is about 500 bucks, and probably about 600 bucks new if you can still find one in a mom and pop camera shop. It's a "rediscovered lens" that people have been very happy with on the D700 and D3.

I moved up from a D200, and the weight increase (9 oz) was definitely noticeable. So I found myself putting a lot more thought into the lenses I used.

My old 24-120VR was fairly heavy and kind of long, and was of a pain to carry around for general use. I now use a 24-85/2.8-4, which, besides having better IQ, balances much more nicely due to its size even though it weights almost the same. The 28-105 is also a great alternative. My old Sigma 100-300/4 was really tough to manage on the D700 off the tripod, so I downsized to an 80-200 (and added a 2X TC). The Nikkor is comparable in IQ but slightly smaller and lighter, and is much more manageable. These aren't major differences in weight - a half pound here for there, but they've made a big difference for me.

I also shoot a lot more MF primes, due largely to the improved viewfinder, but their light weight and compactness make the D700 a very nice package to cart around. I find the Voigtlander 40/2 to be a real winner as a standard lens on the D700.

Just my $.02.

Steve

--
http://www.stevebrunophotography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbruno/

Personally I was upgrading from D80 with Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 to the D700 24-70mm f/2.8

I doesn't feel a big difference between the two set of gears although my D700 with lens is around 2kg now.

I am carrying the gear everyday with me. Even for work or for leisure purpose. I shoot around 700 photos in average per working day and I don't feel that the camera is that heavy.

Hope this information help you a bit

Cheers
Piero