User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Lens for D700

  1. #1
    Member timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 2011
    Location
    Deloraine
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lens for D700

    I'm considering one of the new Nikon 24-120 f4 lens as a general purpose lens for a D700 and would welcome comments or alternative suggestions.

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    What do you shoot? Lenses choice should be based on the genre you shoot
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tell us a bit about yourself, what have you got now, what are your aspirations, your genre, your vision, your subjects

    A general purpose lens is anything really from 18-300mm range

    From all accounts the 24-120 is a really nice lens, but its going to be very short for birds or wildlide for example

    We love Nikon owners here so I look forward to seeing your images
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  4. #4
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post

    We love Nikon owners here so I look forward to seeing your images

    You really are trying...


    If you want something that will do a bit of everything, the new 28-300 is getting good reviews. No 1 lens is a perfect solution, they all have downsides in one way or another. The big downside about the 28-300 is that it reaches the f/5.6 aperture fairly soon in the zoom range and has a bit of distortion which for a zoom with it's range is still reasonably good.

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter
    timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 2011
    Location
    Deloraine
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the replies.

    My other lenses are all DX and I would like a first FX lens for a new D700. My main requirement is for shooting landscapes without the need to carry around several different prime lenses. As wide an aperture in a good quality lens as possible but with the flexibility of a zoom. For longer zooms I can continue to use DX lenses for the time being as I have several of these which I use with my D300.

    I can't see anything in my price range (up to about $1,500) with better than the fixed f4 and 24mm.

  6. #6
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nikon AF-S 17-35/2.8 the pro's go to wide angle. Plentiful mint used ones from the USa for about AUD$1000 landed here. Alternative, and also reasonably good is the new Nikon AF-S 16-35mm/4, brand new about the same $1000 landed here but not quite to the standard of the 17-35mm.

  7. #7
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Agree with Wayne. I use a 17-35 F2.8 Nikon on my D3 as my wide-angle lens for landscapes. I have a 24-70 as well, but the 17-35 gives you a much wider angle and is probably the best budget pro level lens for landscapes, unless you want to spend a lot more and get a 14-24.

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 2011
    Location
    Deloraine
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Wayne & Ricktas. I'll take that recommendation and look for a 17-35. I like the idea of f2.8 and 17mm.

  9. #9
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On FX, 17mm is pretty wide...

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dont ignore the 20 f/2.8 either. I love that lens

  11. #11
    Account Closed reaction's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    792
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    24-120 looks OK but is a bit soft over 100
    but I'd still get it as my 1st FX lens

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Oct 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting discussion between the 17-35 and 16-35. This morning read on another nikon forum, they
    think the 16-35 is THE camera, a bit over the 17-35...
    Perhaps it is preference... I haven't used either, but when soliciting an opinion, perhaps we need to
    consider when it gets to the fine line, opinion might be very persuasive(?) Either one would certainly
    get the job done... perhaps.
    Cheryle

    He is!
    ><>

  13. #13
    Member Briegman's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Nov 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just ordered the 16-35. I should have it in a couple of weeks, I'll let u know what it's like.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I got a 16-35 f/4.0 VR when they first came out.
    Lots of photographers switched.
    So, I was finally able to pick up a used, mint 17-35 f/2.8 at "fire sale" as the market was flooded.
    I compared them and liked the 17-35 so much more that I sent the 16-35 back.

    At f/2.8- f/4.0 the 17-35 is better.
    At f/8 the 16-35 is slightly sharper.
    I did not find the VR as useful as f/2.8

    I have not used the 28-300 on my D3 yet, but prefer it over the 18-200 on the D7000.
    The 14-24 is in a class by itself. The primes have a hard time keeping up at either end.
    Last edited by RRRoger; 14-01-2011 at 7:02pm.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RRRoger View Post
    I got a 16-35 f/4.0 VR when they first came out.
    Lots of photographers switched.
    So, I was finally able to pick up a used, mint 17-35 f/2.8 at "fire sale" as the market was flooded.
    I compared them and liked the 17-35 so much more that I sent the 16-35 back.

    At f/2.8- f/4.0 the 17-35 is better.
    At f/8 the 16-35 is slightly sharper.
    I did not find the VR as useful as f/2.8

    The 14-24 is in a class by itself. The primes have a hard time keeping up at either end.
    I'd agree with that, having each of those lens. Particularly the f/2.8 v VR statement. And the 14-24 is just one of the best lens ever.
    Photojournalist | Filmmaker | Writer | National Geographic | Royal Geographic

    D3x and other gear.


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Jul 2009
    Location
    Arnhem Land
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    24-70 and 14-24 are a fantastic combination, especially on an FX body. But cost wise I'd also go with 17-35 or the 20mm.
    DM
    Nikon, Really Right Stuff, Gitzo, Manfrotto, Mac
    flickr

  17. #17
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Nikon AF-S 17-35/2.8 the pro's go to wide angle. Plentiful mint used ones from the USa for about AUD$1000 landed here. Alternative, and also reasonably good is the new Nikon AF-S 16-35mm/4, brand new about the same $1000 landed here but not quite to the standard of the 17-35mm.
    That's debatable and there has been many a discussion on other sites where the consensus seems to favour the 16-35 f4.

    As for VR, I think it fantastic even for wide angle as it mean that you can shoot up to 4 stops lower ISO or handheld. I found VR almost indispensible when in Europe and the UK earlier this year inside those dimly lit cathedrals and churches where 1/5sec, f13 and ISO3200 were almost the norm. The f2.8 advantage is only for stopping action and only amounts to 1 stop which would be a very small part of any shooting situation for most people. When you know how to use the 16-35 correctly, it returns fantastic results.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And when you know how to use a 17-35 correctly it's even better but not close to the 14-24 which is superb (but expensive). Glass rules and with quality lens this is best indicated by the "f" stop.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm considering choosing one out of all three this year at some stage so a useful debate.

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Regular knumbnutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2009
    Location
    Upper Coomera, Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Kiwi,
    I have the 14-24 if u wanna have a try.
    I had the 16-35 F4 at the same time as the 14-24 but didnt keep it.
    I know LanceB is pretty passionate about the 16-35 but i'll agree to disagree, but at the same time, there are votes for either and it would certainly depend on a couple of things not talked about yet.

    1. If u use filters then I would suggest 16-35 as it takes 77mm filter, the 14-24 does not take filters easily.
    2. If you wanna shoot interiors, architecture or home etc then wider the better and distortion (less on the 14-24) is a consideration too, i would lean in favour of the 14-24.
    3. Build quality, imo the 14-24 with the metal body, feels very well made, the 16-35 is light and feels cheaper, especially if you have 24-70 or the 70-200 which are similar to the 14-24 build wise.
    4. Either will shoot Landscapes really well.

    Cheers Neil
    A Birth Certificate shows that we were born.
    A Death Certificate shows that we died.
    Pictures show that we lived!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/knumbnutz/
    http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/neilmorgan


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •