is a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G ED + D7000 a waste?

[danny]

Hi All,
Finally looking at upgrading to D7000 after spending the last couple of years getting to know my D3000. Not a huge upgrade compared to so many that are currently going to the D800. I know the obvious chose would be to get a 17-50 2.8... but for a little extra I could go the full hog (so to speak) and get the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G.

I have been going over the pros and cons for days and would love some advice from people on AP.

I know the 24-70 is an FX and the D7000 is a DX but I was thinking that an extra couple of hundred $ investment now would pay off as from all accounts it is a lens that I will always have what ever body comes my way in the distant future.

As a side note instead of the D7000 I was looking at maybe contemplating upgrading to the D700 but it seems that supply has dried up (grey market).

Cheers
Danny

[MissionMan]

Look around at shops for a D700. You may find one still in stock somewhere on special. Second hand market is also pretty open with them.

The 24-70 is never a waste, in fact, good glass is never a waste ever.

[ricktas]

Buying lenses built for FF bodies is a good move. Lenses can last you a lifetime, camera bodies rarely will. If you buy a good lens now, you should never really need to replace it. so I say Yes, get the 24-70

[Glenda]

I have a D7000 and recently bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and love it. I chose the Tamron for the vibration control. Haven't tried it handheld in low light as yet but know I need the VC in those circumstances. Guess it will depend on what other lenses you have. I also have the Nikon 10-24 so wasn't really concerned about 24 not being very wide on a cropped sensor.

[zollo]

You will still get better micro contrast ( sharpness ) from the 24-70 no matter if it's on an fx or dx body, so high quality lens will never be a waste.

BTW imo the d7000 will keep up with a d700 at pretty much everything, so I wouldn't be too concerned.

[Lance B]

Hi All,
Finally looking at upgrading to D7000 after spending the last couple of years getting to know my D3000. Not a huge upgrade compared to so many that are currently going to the D800. I know the obvious chose would be to get a 17-50 2.8... but for a little extra I could go the full hog (so to speak) and get the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G.

I have been going over the pros and cons for days and would love some advice from people on AP.

Only possible issue to you may be that the apparent focal length of the 24-70 on the D7000 will be 36-105, which may not be a big deal to you.

I know the 24-70 is an FX and the D7000 is a DX but I was thinking that an extra couple of hundred $ investment now would pay off as from all accounts it is a lens that I will always have what ever body comes my way in the distant future.

As a side note instead of the D7000 I was looking at maybe contemplating upgrading to the D700 but it seems that supply has dried up (grey market).

Getting a D700 may be a good thing if you like to shoot wider rather than longer. However, if you want to shoot sports, birds or animals, the D7000 is a better bet due to the crop sensor. The D7000 has pretty much just as good high ISO noise ability as the D700, so you won't lose out there.

[danny]

Lance - thanks for the advice. Good to know about the iso range being similar.

[Epoc]

I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.

[Lance B]

I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.

Hmm, I don't know. I think the D7000 can pretty much match the D700, here are some ISO6400 shots from the D7000:







This is at ISO5000

[AVALANCHE]

Lance, those are incredible!

[JM Tran]

Lance you are showing photos that were shot in what seemed like decent lighting, so naturally a DX sensor can still perform decently. However, there is just no way a D7000 sensor can match a D700 in low light situations, say hello to noise in shadows etc. Maybe post up a side by side comparison of a dimly lit room with both cameras.

[Epoc]

Yep, compare in low light. No comparison. Also, the DR of the 700 leaves the 7000 way behind as well. I can recover so much more from a blown out 700 shot compared to the same shot with the 7000. I am away now from my computer for a week on business. If this thread is still alive when I return, I will post examples.

[WhoDo]

There is no question that in EXTREME conditions, the larger sensor of the D700 will outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000. That said, Lance's point remains valid - the D7000 will still produce "usable" images at the extremes of its ISO range ... almost to the standard of the older technology D700. It's all very well to argue the point about this processor vs. that processor but the OP's question was NOT about processors but about a lens. Considered advice is, IMHO, always much more useful than fanboism.

[Epoc]

The OP also mentioned deciding between D700 and D7000. Lance's points may be valid, but so are JM Tran's and mine. The D700 will noticeably outperform the D7000 in low light, high ISO situations. Simple as that really. No "fanboyism" at play here, just facts from someone who owns both bodies.

[zollo]

hmmm, i still think a d7000 will perform on par with a d700. if one wanted to photograph "dimly lit rooms" with lots of shadows, uhm, there is no need to use high iso to do that. however, if you want a correctly exposed photo, the iso performance of the d700 is not worth the extra pricetag over the 7000, at all, imo.

[WhoDo]

Getting a D700 may be a good thing if you like to shoot wider rather than longer. However, if you want to shoot sports, birds or animals, the D7000 is a better bet due to the crop sensor. The D7000 has pretty much just as good high ISO noise ability as the D700, so you won't lose out there.

I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.

There is no question that in EXTREME conditions, the larger sensor of the D700 will outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000. That said, Lance's point remains valid - the D7000 will still produce "usable" images at the extremes of its ISO range ... almost to the standard of the older technology D700. It's all very well to argue the point about this processor vs. that processor but the OP's question was NOT about processors but about a lens. Considered advice is, IMHO, always much more useful than fanboism.

The OP also mentioned deciding between D700 and D7000. Lance's points may be valid, but so are JM Tran's and mine. The D700 will noticeably outperform the D7000 in low light, high ISO situations. Simple as that really. No "fanboyism" at play here, just facts from someone who owns both bodies.

So you are saying then that it IS "a waste" for the OP to consider pairing a Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED with the D7000? If so, how can you make that call without knowing what the OP primarily wants to shoot with his new gear? Lance offered both perspectives in his initial response. Yours simply implied the D7000 was useless in high ISO low light situations. Lance replied with evidence in the form of images from the D7000 taken at 6400 ISO - higher than your "extreme" limit of 5000 ISO for that body - as you said, "with the D7000 I wouldn't even go there". JM Tran then said the images "looked" as though they were taken in good light. How does he know? Why would anyone, even a bird fancier, shoot at ISO 6400 if the light level didn't require it? JM Trans reply was disingenuous and based on a specious argument IMO.

You may have both bodies but clearly you favour one over the other. I made it clear in my post that there is no question the larger sensor of the D700 would outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000 in low light. I didn't suggest a degree, and neither did Lance. Only JM Tran hinted at a degree with his unsubstantiated suggestion that "there is just no way a D7000 sensor can match a D700 in low light situations". Well, Lance's post clearly debunks that statement. How "low light" does it have to be for the D7000 to be discernibly worse than the D700? Independent comparisons suggest the difference is 1 f/stop at the worst. Those same comparisons also show there is little or no difference between the two bodies in most other areas, although the D7000 actually has a greater dynamic range (13.9 eve vs. 12.2 evs) than the D700 in Landscape, and it also is a much faster body for sports or wildlife. Since we are talking about a lens that covers landscape, portrait and sports ranges on DX body, but only wide angle to very short tele on a FX body, which would you seriously recommend as a combination for someone moving up from a D3000?

You say there was no "fanboyism" in your reply. Maybe not, but there was IMHO a great deal of sensor snobbery in at least one of the replies in this thread and that's just not helpful. Lance has supported his assertions with images. I have supported mine with references to specific independent tests. You and JM Tran have simply made unsupported assertions and expected readers to take you at your word. You said you want proof and we've supplied it. Where's yours?

For others who may be reading this thread, I apologise if my response seems harsh. I have discovered that I have little patience with unfounded assertions when people are asking for advice rather than opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and some more facts for those who trust them over opinions: here is the EXIF data from the first of Lance's images above:

Lens: 70-200 mm f/2.8 Shot at 400 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/250 sec, f/7.1, ISO 6400
Flash: Off, Did not fire

You will note there was no flash used, the shutter speed was quite slow and the aperture was fairly wide. It looks like there may have been a 2XTC involved too. There clearly wasn't enough "good light" to leave Lance with so little wiggle room in order to get the shot. So much for the argument about it "looking like the images were shot in good light"(sic).

[JM Tran]

Ahhhh yes, the good old classic DxO website which has been the butt of jokes a bit too many times for anyone shooting long enough to take seriously

Well, just wanted to say thank you for that rant/assumption of my 'unsupported assertions' and whatnot. Relax from writing, nobody is having a dig at your beloved D7000, I was curious at Lance's comment about it -

I think the D7000 can pretty much match the D700, here are some ISO6400 shots from the D7000:

.

I thought it was well established on the net and forums already that whilst a D7000 can punch pretty well with high ISO up to a certain level, it is still sometimes 1 stop behind. One stop, is still 1, it is not on par like some are trying to claim.

Not to mention, I'd prefer the D3/700 high iso file any day over a D7000, for work or fun/personal - as I prefer retaining more details retained rather than overly smoothed out/aggressive NR - guess everyone has different standards of what is acceptable or not.

Anyway, instead of posting a Dx0 link, here are some more useful threads - which are based on user experiences rather than reading numbers and graphs, which I think is much more helpful if you want to keep harping on about D7000 on par with D700/3 etc.

*grabs popcorn*

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-c...7626246949571/

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/comparis...-iso/index.htm (OMG a Ken Rockwell link!)

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com.au...-high-iso.html

[ricktas]

WOW, isn't this getting down to something well off-topic from the OP's question.

Is a Nikon 24-70 worth getting to use on a D7000?

If this thread continues as an 'I can piss further', I will close it. Lance has shown with examples that the D7000 can produce great results, and the 24-70 is a brilliant lens. So lets keep it about what the OP asked, eh?

[Tommo1965]

not a waste that's for sure ...it would make a very good portrait lens on a D7000...at the wide end it may not be as wide as you'd want

Ive just bought this lens and its being used on my D700...its not as quick to focus as my 70-200 or as confidant ..but its a quality piece of kit none the less ..and used where its strengths lie will be with you over multiple bodies

[Lance B]

Just to clarify my stand point on the matter and I still think this is relevent to the OP's question as it may sway his thinking to or from the D7000 for his future needs. I am not trying to turn this into a pi55ing contest.

The reason I was giving comparisons between the D700 and D7000 was because I wanted to point out to the OP that if he wanted to shoot sports or birds or whatever then the fact that the D7000 is a crop sensored camera, it will probably be a better choise as it will give him the 1.5x focal length advantage, so a 300mm lens acts like a 450mm lens etc, which is great for "reach". Added to this, it is a crop sensor packed with 16Mp over the D700's 12Mp, so he can even crop the D7000 if required, whereas I find that cropping the D700 does take the edge of the image, IMO.

Now, when we use long lenses specifically for birds and sports etc, then have to consider that higher shutter speeds are generally required for the purpose of stopping subject movement as VR only helps with camera movement. So, keeping this in mind, we need to consider that shutter speeds that may be required can be 1/1000sec or much more, depending on the focal length being used, and even in reasonably lit areas, you may require ISO's of 6400, as per the examples above. Of course you can use lower shutter speeds, but only if the subject is reasonably stationary or at least stationary at the time of shutter release.

Take these two birds below. As they were "snuggling" away, they were moving/jittering the whole time and I required the setting of a reasonably high shutter speed of 1/1000sec for my 500 f4 VR lens on the D800. Now this was a FX (FF) shot, yes, but this is a heavy 45% crop, so, more than from FX (full frame) to DX (APS C) which would be about a 33% crop so it has the effect of focal length multiplier as well and we could be talking and effective focal length of about 940mm.

Model NIKON D800
Focal Length 500 mm
Exposure Time 1/1000 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 3200



So, my point was with showing the examples of the D7000 at high ISO is that it is a highly accomplished DX camera for high ISO purposes and very much worth considering if this is what the OP wants to explore with his D7000.