D700 Lens Choice - Need Advice

imho, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is the best so far !
FF performance like what you "should" expect.

and you already have another fav 14-24 f2.8 ...I think you can hang for a while until a new replacement for the 24-70 f2.8 is here.

I own the 24-70 f2.8 nano ... but, for me ... it really does not measure up to the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII's new standard of what is Great.

An NEW 24-70 f2.8 VRII is needed that is "Better" than the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII is now. With Blazing/Accurate AF (which is what it has now). but, sharpness ok only wide open.

The new standard is Sharp Wide Open and at any FL. and nice Bokeh at the Long wide open end.

Hope this helps,
HG

--
http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

bbbinohio said:

Boy, I am suprized by how popular the 70-200 is with all you guys!!

Well, that's why I put up the post, to learn.

Thanks! Great Answer!
Bob

Click to expand...

It's because the 70-200, like the 24-70, is one terrific lens. If you can afford the three (you have the 14-24) the 24-70 and 70-200 gives you a lot. The slightly cheaper option of the 70-200 and the 50 1.4 = particularly if you like any low light applications, is super as well. They don't call the 14-24/24-70/70-200 combination Nikon's "holy trinity" for nothing you know...
Bill

--
http://www.billcurry.ca

Hawaii-geek said:

imho, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is the best so far !
FF performance like what you "should" expect.

and you already have another fav 14-24 f2.8 ...I think you can hang for a while until a new replacement for the 24-70 f2.8 is here.

I own the 24-70 f2.8 nano ... but, for me ... it really does not measure up to the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII's new standard of what is Great.

Click to expand...

Fully agree. 70-200 VRII is one of the best zoom lenses ever built and the overal impression is extremely positive (not so in case of 24-70). This lens is a must imho.
--
http://www.intopicture.com

Aloha Jan3x5,

It's been a while

Yep, so far, this is my favoite Nikon lens ... It makes me shoot more with it.
and normally, I shoot more at the 24-70 FL.

HG

Jan3x5 said:

Hawaii-geek said:

imho, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is the best so far !
FF performance like what you "should" expect.

and you already have another fav 14-24 f2.8 ...I think you can hang for a while until a new replacement for the 24-70 f2.8 is here.

I own the 24-70 f2.8 nano ... but, for me ... it really does not measure up to the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII's new standard of what is Great.

Click to expand...

Fully agree. 70-200 VRII is one of the best zoom lenses ever built and the overal impression is extremely positive (not so in case of 24-70). This lens is a must imho.
--
http://www.intopicture.com

Click to expand...

--
http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

ONE is enough.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_field_review_samples.htm

bbbinohio said:

Let's put it this way.... (assuming that you own a FX camera)

What THREE lenes would you own if price were no object, but you could never, ever use any othere lens, except one of those three.

Which THREE would you chose????

Thanks!
Bob

Click to expand...

Hawaii-geek said:

Aloha Jan3x5,

It's been a while

Yep, so far, this is my favoite Nikon lens ... It makes me shoot more with it.
and normally, I shoot more at the 24-70 FL.

Click to expand...

Hi mate,

hope you are doing well!

It seems that all roads lead to Rome .

Because of previous ZD 14-35/2.0 I am a bit disappointed with 24-70, but found that 70-200VR II is really top-notch lens and I am absolutely satisfied with it.
--
http://www.intopicture.com

24-70
85 1.4 (D or G)

Probably the 24-120vrII or 28-300vrII for walk-around and occasional longer reach. I Had the 70-200 vrI and vrII, awersome glass but too heavy for me and I'm not a telephoto guy.

I guess I just don't see myself shooting things from that distance. It's too short for bird and wildlife (unless you are in a zoo). It's usually too short for most sports.

It's too big just to be a portrait lens. I am having a hard time imagining what I would shoot from that distance. Any suggestions?

Bob

Absolutely agree.

I've tried the 24-120 f/4 VR and it is a great lens. Worth waiting to see the tests just to see if it really stands out.

I would add the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 and you'll be set.

The 50 has the advantage of being a bit more compact and light for travel, whereas the 85 is the killer portrait lens.

Mark

donmcvee said:

If I were you I'd wait until the jury is in on the new 24 - 120 VR f4. If it pans out I'd go for longer reach than 200 mm. That 70-200 2.8 is a monster, especially for travel unless you have a Sherpa to lug your gear.
Don
--
It's all about light.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.fotomark.fr

I've been looking for an affordable and light walkaround for my D700. After going through Tamron 28-300, Nikkor 24-85 2.8-4D, 28-200G, 28-105D, I ended up with well-reviewed and somewhat rare Tamron Special Edition (SP) 24-135. It is a very sharp lens, out of production and weighs around 500 grams.

I believe that 24-135 range in one lens is what I'm looking for, as the superzooms that start at 28mm, I feel are not wide enough for me, in city shooting. 24, on the other hand, is workable.

Since 24-135 is a 3.5-5.6 lens, with no VR, at night I might switch to Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 or one of my primes.

Oh, and used 24-135 should cost $200, some more some less. This is 5 times less than Nikon 28-300VR, and 6 times less than 24-120 F/4.
--

Own 14-24, 24-70 .105 micro, zeiss 100f2, zeiss 35f2, nikon 300f4 and sigma 150-500
i miss the 70-200 very very bad, I hardly use the 24-70
I find that I could not do without the zeiss 35 and 100 and the 14-24

I strongly suggest u the 70-200vrII which is a must have for long landscape and travelling potrait of moovig people.

I would consider to skip the 24-70 range since u would already have a better 24 and better 70 and in the middle I would add the zeiss 35 f2 which is milead ahead of any counterpart.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28117703@N03/

You know, I've never really seriously looked at Tamron. Thanks for the advice, I'll check them out.

Bob

PaulBearer said:

14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII.

Click to expand...

Again, I see a lot of you guys willing to haul that big 70-200 VRII with no real reservation. Yet I still don't see that much that I might shoot with it.

Thanks for Posting!
Bob

I bought the he 105 AFS VR, a year later 14-24 AFS and later acquired the 60 AFS G to fill the focal length gap and I like it much more than the 50mm AFS G that I owned for a very short time. If I were in your position I would buy the 60 AFS G and 70-200 AFS VRii.

Jan3x5 said:

hope you are doing well!

Click to expand...

Nikon has been very good to me

Jan3x5 said:

It seems that all roads lead to Rome .

Click to expand...

We, know what that means LOL

Jan3x5 said:

Because of previous ZD 14-35/2.0 I am a bit disappointed with 24-70,

Click to expand...

Jan, "you" have the burden of knowing LOL

I "know" exactly what you are talking about.

That being said ... the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is sooo Killer fast and dead on AF (even in low light) ... that it is just a workhorse. and a great working tool.

but, ... when you shoot with the New 70-200 f2.8 VRII ... you get a glimpse of what is "YET" to come !

Shot a RACE today ... and am a shooter for the Ford IronMan World Championships in KONA next week.
and the D700 + Grip + 70-200 f2.8 VRII ... is my fav weapon !
It "just" feels RIGHT !

but found that 70-200VR II is really top-notch lens and I am absolutely satisfied with it.

Jan3x5 said:

--

Click to expand...

I am totally with you ... even better than the 35-100 f2 ... which you know I love.
p.s. on the shoot today ... we had a e3 + grip and 35-100 f2 out as well.

And it is my opinion that the D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII runs circles around that combo.
It's not even close ... imho.
(It's that burden of knowing thing lol)

HG

--
http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

lomarot, nice advice ... could not have said it better

Very logical.

The 14-24 is already a great wide.

My guess is ... IF , the 24-70 FL was "really" important to you ... you would have got that First.
As I did , regardless of how I feel about it.

(but, make no mistake ... the 24-70 f2.8, is a workhorse lens for me ... because of the FL ... and the things I shoot)

Hope this helps,
HG

lomarot said:

Own 14-24, 24-70 .105 micro, zeiss 100f2, zeiss 35f2, nikon 300f4 and sigma 150-500
i miss the 70-200 very very bad, I hardly use the 24-70
I find that I could not do without the zeiss 35 and 100 and the 14-24

I strongly suggest u the 70-200vrII which is a must have for long landscape and travelling potrait of moovig people.

I would consider to skip the 24-70 range since u would already have a better 24 and better 70 and in the middle I would add the zeiss 35 f2 which is milead ahead of any counterpart.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28117703@N03/

Click to expand...

--
http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'