Lens for D700

[timh]

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.

[ricktas]

What do you shoot? Lenses choice should be based on the genre you shoot

[kiwi]

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

[Wayne]

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.

[timh]

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.

[Wayne]

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.

[ricktas]

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.

[timh]

Thanks Wayne & Ricktas. I'll take that recommendation and look for a 17-35. I like the idea of f2.8 and 17mm.

[Wayne]

On FX, 17mm is pretty wide...

[kiwi]

Dont ignore the 20 f/2.8 either. I love that lens

[reaction]

24-120 looks OK but is a bit soft over 100
but I'd still get it as my 1st FX lens

[Chayelle]

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.

[Briegman]

I just ordered the 16-35. I should have it in a couple of weeks, I'll let u know what it's like.

[RRRoger]

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.

[Redgum]

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.

[dmdigital]

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.

[Lance B]

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.

[Redgum]

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.

[kiwi]

I'm considering choosing one out of all three this year at some stage so a useful debate.

[knumbnutz]

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