Yesterday i bought a new D700. I can't make up my mind about a general lens for this camera. I have the old 80-200 2.8 and a 80-400, but I lack a good lens for landscapes and events. The 24-70 2.8 is to expensive for me, but I can afford a 24-120 4.0 or a 24-85.
Can anyone give me good advice?
Thanks in advance

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have all the f2.8 Nikon zooms and use them on my D3, but with the D700 and walking about shooting those lenses are too heavy/bulky for me. I find the 24-120 f4 to be the ideal one lens solution. VR is very useful on occasion and the zoom range works for my shooting. I find the 24-120's image quality to be excellent, so I don't feel I'm losing anything to the faster zooms.

Places We Have Been

www.peppermill-multimedia.com

You could go back a couple of generations and use a 35-70mm if you need f/2.8 instead of the 24-70mm. It will be used, but they are out there in excellent condition. The 24-120mm f/4 has a good following, but I have not had the pleasure of its acquaintance. The 28-105mm has surprising quality for its price and is the lens that I use for general photography. Here is an example:

Jim

My Nikonians Gallery

Nikon designed both the 24-120/f4.0 VR and the 28-300 VR for exactly the purpose your are describing. They both have the most recent technology and they are both excellent for their purpose.

The general consensus is that the first provides slightly better IQ while sacrificing the greater range of the latter. I have both and I think both of them are terrific. If I think I may need the greater range I take the 28-300. If I think image quality is more important and I don't need the range, I take the 24-120. Most photos shot anywhere in the mid range, you can't tell the difference. For landscape and events I would prefer the 24-120.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

I use the 28-300 and have been pretty happy so far.

jdroach, a Milwaukee area and sometimes Chicago area Nikonian.





Visit my Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonian gallery

jdroachphotography.com

I use both the 24-70 and the 28-105. As an earlier poster said , the 28-105 is a surprising good lens, very light and compact and you probably can get it for a fraction of a lens like the 24-120 f4. I use the 28-105 when I want to go light. I guess if I was in your shoes I would probably go for the 24-120 as you can afford it.
I enclose a shot that I took with that lens (28-105) that I submitted a couple of days ago in the critique section

geneluck

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I use a 24-120 f/4 with my D700. It is fantastic. I formerly used the 35-70 f/2.8, also a great option. I ultimately sold the 2.8 for VR and greater zoom range, which are more important for general shooting in my opinion.

Garrett

This is my Nikonians gallery.

Since the D700 is an FX camera my favorite walk around lens for it is a simple AF 35mm f/2 D lens. This lens is fast, short in length, and it is very light.
Ideal in my opinion for walking around.
Perry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My walkaround lens is a nikkor 85mmf/1.8D. I sometimes throw a 24mmf/2.8D or 35mmf/2 in my pocket if I think I may need something a little wider.
This covers most of my walkabout needs.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I use the 24-120 F3.5-5.6 for a "walk-around" lens. It has been extremely useful and I leave it on the camera about 80% of the time.


Hylos Barrett
"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out." John Wooden

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I've found the older 24-85 afs 3.5-5.6f works very well. You should be able to find one used. Mine was bought new in 2003 and has stood up very well on my fujiS2 D200 D300 AND D700. IQ is very good, speedy af, and comfortable to use, not bad for an early plastic fantastic ;{)

Greg oWo
Just Watchin the world go by,
trying to get a good picture.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Walk around to me means-I dont want to change lenses while I stroll about with no set project in mind, ie get out for a walk with the camera as opposed to being geared up for an airshow or museum whatever.
I have a 24-120 and a 70-200 VR11 plus others but my walk around is my Nikon 70-300mm VR. Its not too big or obtrusive and covers just about every eventuallity.
The two snaps attached are nothing more than walk about shots, nothing special just taken for the sake of coming home from a walk around the village with something.
But both were taken with the 70-300mm which copes with everything, OK I could have gone to a bit more trouble to get the close up sharper but did i need to change to a close up lens on walkabout? No!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

I've been using the AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. It's very light, very sharp, and very useful. They're out of production, but you can find good copies cheap. I think it's a real bargain.

Rich

I use the Zeiss 35/2 - light, unobtrusive and outstanding IQ

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Yesterday i bought a new D700. I can't make up my mind about
>a general lens for this camera. I have the old 80-200 2.8 and
>a 80-400, but I lack a good lens for landscapes and events.
>The 24-70 2.8 is to expensive for me, but I can afford a
>24-120 4.0 or a 24-85.
>Can anyone give me good advice?
>Thanks in advance

I personally use a 28-300 f/3.5-f/5.6. Can't go wrong with that, other than the variable aperture. The VR works really well, down to 1/15 or even 1/4 of a second if you're careful. Since you have a D700 though, you might get away with the sliding ISO to keep your shutter speeds higher.

The lens is cheaper than the 24-120 and you have a larger focal length range.

My flickr page has examples with the lens.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi!

I have a 28-70/2.8, but it's heavy, as is the 17-35/2.8... I bought a 24-85 AF-S, and sold it because it has distortion that I don't like. To replace it, I got a used 28-105 which is excellent (but don't say it too loud, prices could soar!), and finally I got a 28-300VR. I'd favour the 28-105 if you want lightweight, but the 28-300 is surprising!

Olivier Rychner
__________________________________________
Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it! And it's a bit void as of now, but I also have a Nikonians blog

Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...

Oh yes, that weight of the 28-300...wow. That's one heavy lens. What was surprising was the 24mm f/1.4G is almost as heavy and large as the 28-300. That's crazy.

If I didn't own the 28-300, I'd probably still be carry my old standbys which were my 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, and 24mm f/2.8.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think the Nikon 18-200 is the best walk around lense made.
Used it with the D-200, D-300, and the D700

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have the 24-70 f2.8, 28-300 and 16-35mm f4 (amongst others). Of course the 24-70mm is fantastic, the 16-35mm a very capable lens too. However, I find myself with the 28-300mm mounted most of the time and all the time when travelling. Yes, it's heavy but balances very well on my D700 + grip. I've mentioned elsewhere how suprised I am with the IQ, however that said at 300mm it's not equal in my opinion to the 70-300mm, it's a bit soft. One can't have everything, but the 28-300mm gives me most of it. I did have the 24-120mm but only the older version, that said it was a very capable walkabout lens, despite much bad press. Personally, I prefer heavier to lighter lenses on my D700.

I tend to keep my 24-70, 16-35 and 70-200mm for when I am out doing competition photography and for those landscapes I print to 16x12 inch for selling.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Thank you all for the suggestions. Today i am going to try the 28-300. That was a lens i haven't thought about and is also still on stock in some shops. If i decide to buy it i might consider to buy a used 20 mm or 18-35 fot the wider end.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I took a long time deciding on the 28-300mm, I now have no regrets. I think you will have made a safe decision if you do go for it.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

It didn't take me long. After half an hour of experimenting with it I bought it. A great lens.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

A good choice. I'm off on an Easter break today and my D700 with the 28-300mm is coming to

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I used the 28-300VR on my D90 and now on my D800 and I find that I leave it on my D800 all the time. It has the range I like in FX for situations I come upon where I need flexibility. DxO rates it overall as a '15' on a D3X which is a 24mp that I use to compare to the D800...for whatever reason. I had to pick one and resolution seemed to be my quality measure...and DxO's I think. Anyway...the lens as a a 3.5 to 5.6 rates much lower in DxO tests...makes sense to me. My 105VR in comparison rates a '34' on DxO and my 70-200VR rates a '27'. So is the 28-300VR the best lens...not in my opinion...but is it the most useful with a high quality....I think so...and so do others. Rumor has it that Nikon will 'kit' the D800 with the 28-300VR.

Dan

"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I use the Nikon 24-120 on my D700 and find it to be an outstanding lens. It is a heavy sucker, but it is a superb lens that covers the most used ranges for most people. It would be a keeper too if you upgrade to a D800 or a D4 body.

raysmock

Interestingly, I saw a post on another Nikonians forum today that rumoured that Nikon are considering a D800 kit version with the 28-300mm.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery