D700 and cheap lenses

[arachnophilia]

According to Ken Rockwell's site, he's posted his opinons (and images to back it up) that he gets more resolution with less expensive lenses on a FX sensor than high end glass on a DX sensor (D700 vs D200) That seems to contradict what I glean from so many threads here. I'm sure it's been hashed around a lot but I couldn't find any particular thread discussing this issue.

currently, my three favourite lenses, optically, and that i own are:

1. my 50mm f/1.8 AIs (I)
2. my 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF
3. my 17-55mm f/2.8 AFs.

no. 1 cost me $60. no. 2 was free . and no. 3 cost me $1200, used. i really don't get what price has to do with it. maybe the core of his argument, that lower pixel density sensors are more tolerant of mediocre glass, is correct. maybe not. i dunno. but you just can't correlate it to price.

and, in any case, you'd have to compare apples to apples. the d200 has a very strong AA filter, and is very, very intolerant of even average glass. slightly too low in contrast, or slightly missed focus turns right to blurry and ugly in a real hurry.

 

[LarryPhoto]

I all confused now, I just know my FX gathers more light, as it uses more of the lens to bring it in, while the DX gather less light, but uses the center of the lens, which for most lens tends be the best optically quality?

 

[markhsu]

Resolution is just one dimension. Cheap lens may have more distortion and CA and worse corner imgae quality and ugly bokeh.

 

[Berghof]

--what's the point of owning high end DSLR if you stick a cheap glass on it.It's always better to spend more for good lens and maybe less for the body.
Berghof G.C.

 

[vaxn8r]

Very nice range of responses. Much appreciated.

I'm also coming to the conclusion that one might not always prefer best glass even if one owns it. I've strapped some of these puppies on my body and they are big and robust....heavy. Yet, for sports, low light, or professional applications (not applicable to me) that's what you go to.

Maybe some days you just want to walk around without 5 lbs on you shoulder all day.

I'm coming from a D80 and own a couple fast primes 50 and 35 and a 18-200. I think my next move is 70-200 VRII. I already know I'm keeping my 18-200, it's 1/3 the size and weight and is a decent tool for a lot of what I shoot. Ultimately I also like to shoot indoors and sports, inside and out. This is where I'm bumping against the wall right now.

So my next step will likely be a 20 2.8 and then a D700 for high ISO, or whatever it's replacement will be assuming it has equal or better ISO capability, which to me is more important than ultimate resolution. Then eventually a wide zoom. That ought to hold me for awhile.

 

[tarnish]

I all confused now, I just know my FX gathers more light, as it uses more of the lens to bring it in, while the DX gather less light, but uses the center of the lens, which for most lens tends be the best optically quality?

No, both formats use all of the lens to gather light.

The difference in image quality being discussed is back at the image plane, a couple of inches behind the lens.

The lens makes a circular image that is quite a bit larger than the sensor, but it's not all of equal quality. It tends to be best at and near the center. As you work your way out from the center, it stays good for a while but at some point it will deteriorate. Better lenses hold off that eventual degradation a bit longer (they have larger circles of usable image, sometimes called the sweet spot which is really an area).

Smaller sensors only occupy the middle section of the image circle. A larger sensor occupies a larger piece of that circle. When you hear about a lens thats soft in the corners on the FX format, it just might do very well on the DX format instead. Thus, many non-great lenses can work better on DX, the opposite of Ken Rockwell's assertion.

Here's one (that's not cheap) that illustrates the issue: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1202/cat/30

Be sure to click on the "Results" graphic for both formats.

 

[edwardaneal]

okay - I will accept that a D700 or D3 with its full frame sensor can use lower quality glass and out perform a DX camera with better glass.

But even if this is true why would you buy one of the best cameras made and not want the best glass possible on it?

sure it can do great with lesser glass, but I am fairly sure it will do even better with great glass. And I cant understand why anyone would make the move to FX and then settle for getting less than 100% of what it can give.

I shoot a lowly D200, but most of the glass I have can compete with any lens made at equal apertures and focal lengths and in most cases wins. This is how important I think glass is, If someday I am in a position to get a FX camera I will still want the best glass possible even if lesser glass is as good as what I have now.

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Waldo_O]

okay - I will accept that a D700 or D3 with its full frame sensor can use lower quality glass and out perform a DX camera with better glass.

But even if this is true why would you buy one of the best cameras made and not want the best glass possible on it?

sure it can do great with lesser glass, but I am fairly sure it will do even better with great glass. And I cant understand why anyone would make the move to FX and then settle for getting less than 100% of what it can give.

I shoot a lowly D200, but most of the glass I have can compete with any lens made at equal apertures and focal lengths and in most cases wins. This is how important I think glass is, If someday I am in a position to get a FX camera I will still want the best glass possible even if lesser glass is as good as what I have now.

Your 'lowly' D200 is plenty good Ed, as you surely know more about than I. But the "best glass possible" is getting a bit expensive in case you hadn't noticed. How many people really need the speed/bokeh of a 300/2.8 VR I'm wondering? If so, I hope they have an extra $5K sitting around which makes a D700 seem inexpensive by comparison.

Yes it's true, the D700 works well with 'cheap' lenses. Like the lowly 50 1.4 D, 85 1.8, Tamron 28-75 as examples. The D3/D700/D3S is still near state of the art technology as I see it, if you can get over the 12 MP aspect. I see that type of comment often on the D3/D700 forum, man, what if I get a D700 and Nikon comes up with something better immediately. Well, it won't be less expensive, I think that's pretty much a given. If you value high acuity, solid metering and white balance, accurate AF, low noise, accurate colors, the D700 might not remain a tool for pros only in your eyes for long. I prefer the established focal lengths of the existing primes on FX as well, others might not care as much about that. And I can shoot at ISO 800 all day, every day without worrying about noise, how much is that worth to you?

Why not rent/borrow a D700 for a few days and see how you like it? If we lived closer together, I'd let you borrow mine.

 

[Joesiv]

But even if this is true why would you buy one of the best cameras made and not want the best glass possible on it?

It's a valid question, and I don't think there's a right answer. But I think I'll answer your question with another question

What is a more compact or perhaps even a less intimidating setup, a D5000 with a 70-200 f2.8 on it, or a D700 with a 85mm f/1.8?

To me, I'd say the D700 is less intimidating, and also more compact. Perhaps they may weigh the same (though I think the 70-200 may tip the scale, I haven't looked it up). But having a smaller lens' on a decent sized body will be less noticed, and also easier to hang from your neck, since the weight hangs nicely from the strap. Could probably even hide under a loose jacket...

And maybe I'll ask another question to hopefully shed light on the answer to your question (there is no right/wrong answer I think). But what is a better investment, a DX body with FX lens' where you can't seem to get the focal lengths (especially on the wide end) that they were designed for, such as 24mm, and living with that until EVENTUALLY you upgrade to an FX body, or having a FX body from the start (remember the D700 is the cheapest FX body besides film), and putting cheaper, lighter, smaller lens' on it for comparable IQ?

I guess it's a loaded question, because the D700 is the budget body, really, for FX.

I used to be of the belief that it was all about the lens', invest in them, and perhaps as an investment, the value will retain better on the lens', but without a body that takes good advantage of the lens', you lose out anyways. It's which side you want to lose out on. As you can see from my signature, I'm primarily a fourthirds user, what snagged me for that system was it's zoom lens', they're GREAT, bright, and sharp wide open! But there isn't a body to back it up! So... I'm starting to sway the other way where the body is very important too.

Now, I'm looking at a D700 with some cheaper primes (50 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8), and it's very compelling. Why not the D90 + some 2.8 zooms? Well it's a dead end if in the end what I want is the best IQ out of the Nikon kits, because I'd already be at the top end of the zooms, so I'd be strapped again with a body that's holding me back. afterall, I could just get the f2 zooms for olympus and get the same or better low light/shallow depth of field performance. But again, it's a dead end, because where do I go from there, except getting a better body. But why not just start with the body that offers the bare minimum of what you need, and then build up the lens' that take advantage of it. In my case FX. Both paths are fine I guess. But if the lens' is the investment and FX is the future, then I still think investing in high end DX seems silly, so FX lens' is a must, and in that case, you're really getting into a awkward situation in the wide end until you finally make the jump to FX bodies... and you need to ask if it was worth holding out.

sure it can do great with lesser glass, but I am fairly sure it will do even better with great glass. And I cant understand why anyone would make the move to FX and then settle for getting less than 100% of what it can give.

playing devils advocate here "I can't understand why anyone would buy top end glass and settle for a body that doesn't give 100 of what it could offer" For example depth of field control, and low light performance. Imagine the dim scenes you could shoot on FX with those same lens'.

Obviously having the best body + best lens = win

I shoot a lowly D200, but most of the glass I have can compete with any lens made at equal apertures and focal lengths and in most cases wins. This is how important I think glass is, If someday I am in a position to get a FX camera I will still want the best glass possible even if lesser glass is as good as what I have now.

wanting is fun I want a f1.4 zoom that's a compact pancake that comes free with my D700!
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510 L1
http://www.joesiv.com

 

[edwardaneal]

one nice thing that some people seem to overlook is that great glass does not need to be all that expensive.

look at the AFS 50mm f/1.4G - under $500 and at equal apertures it is as sharp as as you could ever want and more even in sharpness across the frame than any zoom made at 50mm.

if you need a long lens a nikon 180mm f/2.8 is about $850 new and is absolutely top notch quality.

a person does not have to buy the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 to have glass that is fantastic, and if a person is willing to buy used a great kit of primes all the way up to 300mm can be had at a very decent price.

right now I shoot DX and my kit is the 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G and the 70-300VR.

If I ever go FX I will replace the 10.5 with a 16mm f/2.8, and I will sell the 35 and get an 85mm f/1.8

a 16mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 85mm f/1.8 and the 70-300 - - - seems to me like a great kit that really is pretty much as good as I could ever need.

I know you might question the 70-300, but I dont shoot anything at the long end that requires f/2.8 and optically from 70 out to 200mm it competes very well with the 80-200 f/2.8

if you doubt me look at the mtf numbers



--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Phil Flash]

It's so refreshing to be able to buy a fast normal lens for $120.

Then you can plop on some old manual focus lenses that are still great 20-30 years later.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

 

[tyb599807]

To get the results I want/need without wasting extra $. Pixle peeping and measurabating at 100% isn't where it's at for some of us If one never prints larger than 4x6 or maybe an occaisional 8x10 and 90% of sharing is on WEB or pictures frame than why spend more?

In some cases one must have best glass and high end body, other times I think my 190 buck Tamron and D700 did very nicely too, no need at all to drop another grand for what I didn't need, just fore ego or nameplate?

--what's the point of owning high end DSLR if you stick a cheap glass on it.It's always better to spend more for good lens and maybe less for the body.
Berghof G.C.

 

[edwardaneal]

If all you ever do is print at 4x6 with the occasional 8x10 why would you need a D700?

$2,500 on a camera for 4x6 prints and web viewing seems a bit much

To get the results I want/need without wasting extra $. Pixle peeping and measurabating at 100% isn't where it's at for some of us If one never prints larger than 4x6 or maybe an occaisional 8x10 and 90% of sharing is on WEB or pictures frame than why spend more?

In some cases one must have best glass and high end body, other times I think my 190 buck Tamron and D700 did very nicely too, no need at all to drop another grand for what I didn't need, just fore ego or nameplate?

--what's the point of owning high end DSLR if you stick a cheap glass on it.It's always better to spend more for good lens and maybe less for the body.
Berghof G.C.

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Cerumen]

If all you ever do is print at 4x6 with the occasional 8x10 why would you need a D700?

$2,500 on a camera for 4x6 prints and web viewing seems a bit much

Upon first consideration, sure. Until you handle a better class of camera. Yes, the image may be regarded as the final product. But the final product may also be considered another way: The joy of shooting.

Some people buy a Porsche and never go over 75 mph. A beautiful watch keeps no better time than a watch a thousandth the cost. We're all on this planet a limited time, and if one has the resources to buy a better class of product because they appreciate the build, the design, the functional differences, then I think you would agree it's money well-spent.

Better Nikons have always been a joy to handle, and I have no doubt many professional people buy them simply because they feel that good.
--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen
http://www.insectography.com

 

[edwardaneal]

I agree 100%, but I also think that you can say exactly the same things about owning the better glass as well.

I just find it odd that someone would justify buying a consumer grade lens by saying that he only prints 4x6 and 90% of his images are shared on the web, but then he uses a D700.

If you don't need the best equipment for what you do that's great, and if you want the best even if you don't need it, hey - that's great as well

I just never met someone who could feel one way about the camera body and the complete opposite way about the lenses they use on that body

kind of like saving up to get that top of the line Porsche because you want the best and then buying made in India series 70 discount tires for it because your only going to drive 50. :O

If all you ever do is print at 4x6 with the occasional 8x10 why would you need a D700?

$2,500 on a camera for 4x6 prints and web viewing seems a bit much

Upon first consideration, sure. Until you handle a better class of camera. Yes, the image may be regarded as the final product. But the final product may also be considered another way: The joy of shooting.

Some people buy a Porsche and never go over 75 mph. A beautiful watch keeps no better time than a watch a thousandth the cost. We're all on this planet a limited time, and if one has the resources to buy a better class of product because they appreciate the build, the design, the functional differences, then I think you would agree it's money well-spent.

Better Nikons have always been a joy to handle, and I have no doubt many professional people buy them simply because they feel that good.
--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen
http://www.insectography.com

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Berghof]

look at sigma 100 - 300,I've been struggling with the decision whether to go the 70 - 200VR +TC way or Sigma 100 - 300 f.4 + TC and I'm definitely leaning towards the Sigma
--
Berghof G.C.

 

[Berghof]

well,with higher end DSLR one can work with way higher ISO and when photographing let's say small birds the extra resolution in higher ISO is very useful when cropping the image,plus it feels so good to own something that you know performs great
--
Berghof G.C.

 

[Daniel Bliss]

If you have a lens that will resolve, let's say, seven microns, it's still maxing out the sensor on a D700 with its eight micron pixels, but to max out the sensor of a D300, or even a D3x, you need something that can resolve tighter than that.

You can get away with bad glass on the D700 up to a point; when you have glass that gets really mushy in the corners, FX lands you in a world of trouble. The high pixel density of 12MP DX (equivalent to 28MP FX) is much more demanding of central resolution. And assuming Nikon pushes DX out a bit more, say, 16MP or 18MP, that will be even more the case.

 

[tyb599807]

You read my profile?

Try shooting indoor sports, night time high school football, plays in available light, swimming? Shoot a lot of the team most just end up on people computer or a few 5x7 or such.

I could probably have lived with the Sigma 70-200 HSM, but in my case the 70-200 VRI and VRII could see measurable difference, so I spent the money. I did shoot off the Tamron 28-75 against the 24-70 a few times. Sorry found no reason to get one. For the superwide and how I print/view even less.

If one is a pro and makes money shooting and blowing up to 11x14 or larger wedding no question. For me the hobby is shooting and capturing the shot. For others if spending on glass to view at 100% good for them I spent buying the best film, as I can see the difference. Glass for me only what I can see and need, nothing more. The challenge and joy is getting the shot, exposure, moment 100% sharpness at the corners sorry isn't what I live to spend and acquire.

If all you ever do is print at 4x6 with the occasional 8x10 why would you need a D700?

$2,500 on a camera for 4x6 prints and web viewing seems a bit much

To get the results I want/need without wasting extra $. Pixle peeping and measurabating at 100% isn't where it's at for some of us If one never prints larger than 4x6 or maybe an occaisional 8x10 and 90% of sharing is on WEB or pictures frame than why spend more?

In some cases one must have best glass and high end body, other times I think my 190 buck Tamron and D700 did very nicely too, no need at all to drop another grand for what I didn't need, just fore ego or nameplate?

--what's the point of owning high end DSLR if you stick a cheap glass on it.It's always better to spend more for good lens and maybe less for the body.
Berghof G.C.

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED