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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
I have a D700 too i shoot alot of landscape and panorama stitching.I have the AF 24-85mm 1 2;8-4 D i have the lens on cam most of the time,i also have the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mmwide angle, not a big zoom range but a wonderfull lens for landscape.
cheers don.my next lens will be the 70-200 f2.8 oooh i want one soo bad
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.
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
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.
Thanks Wayne & Ricktas. I'll take that recommendation and look for a 17-35. I like the idea of f2.8 and 17mm.
On FX, 17mm is pretty wide...
Dont ignore the 20 f/2.8 either. I love that lens
24-120 looks OK but is a bit soft over 100
but I'd still get it as my 1st FX lens
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!
><>
I just ordered the 16-35. I should have it in a couple of weeks, I'll let u know what it's like.
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 8:02pm.
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.
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.
I am curious what "correctly" might be with this lens?
Kiwi, this would be a great buy for you. I love mine....
And I have fallen in love with the circular images of the 8mm AIS lens...
Even bought a second 10.5mm, shaved the hood, and will begin using
it this weekend. It is not "totally" circular... but we are working on that!
Great little lens!!
Last edited by Chayelle; 28-01-2011 at 11:40pm.