let's dream for a moment and create a list of the most desirable/best performing lenses for D700 available on the market today, regardless of their cost. What lenses would you like to use with your D700 is money wasn't an issue at all and your ultimate goal was to get the best image quality possible?
Actually, let's create another list, having in mind the economical aspect of our choices as well.
My proposals for the "performance list" would be: Nikon 70-200mm VR Nikon 24-70mm Nikon 14-24mm
One proposal for the "economical list": Tokina AT-X Pro D 100mm f/2.8 Macro
I was wondering the same thing. Is adding a 85 f/1.4 or f/1.8 worth it when you already have the 70-200 there. Is the bokeh that much better? Does the smaller size of the lens makes your model more at ease?
Well on my way of owning your dream list by the way...
I would also add the 200-400mm f/4.0 and an updated version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 optimized for FX.
it's pretty interesting to see the importance of prime lenses in all the responses. How would you estimate the percentage of time when you use primes and not zooms? Is it above 50%? Did it evolve over the time you spent shooting? If so, which way?
I bought 24-70mm zoom yesterday and after quick testing I realized that there is only a little more it can offer in comparison to my 50mm f/1.4, so I decided to return it and invest this money in 85mm f/1.4 and/or 14-24mm, which as everybody agrees are incomparable to anything else.
Tue 16-Sep-08 11:59 AM | edited Tue 16-Sep-08 12:05 PM by freddyh
>it's pretty interesting to see the importance of prime lenses >in all the responses. >How would you estimate the percentage of time when you use >primes and not zooms? Is it above 50%?
I'd say its near 95% for me. The only zoom I use on my D3 is the 70-200, which I only use for certain shots/sessions.
The lenses that are mostly on my camera are: - 10.5 f/2.8 DX fisheye - 24 f/2.8 - 35 f/2 - 50 f/1.4 - 85 f/1.8
> Did it evolve over the >time you spent shooting? If so, which way?
These lenses are nice and small, which makes people a lot more comfortable when shooting close to them. Next to that, they are fast (i.e. have a large aperture) which is quite nice in darker venues and they are beautifully sharp.
Did it evolve? Yes, when I shot mainly D200s I had to use primes as that was the only way to get enough light in your camera. I used all primes (plus the Siggy 30 f/1.4 I had then) wide open all the time. In those days I learned to appreciate the image quality and light weight of those lenses. And I learned that a zoom makes you shoot slower rather than faster (as you are very inclined to zoom to the correct focal length before shooting).
My next lens will be the 105 VR macro lens. That's a beautifully sharp portrait lens. And the prime updates Nikon brings at Photokina will follow shortly.
The reason I am not interested in the 14-24 and 24-70 is because they are too large. With those lenses I tend to shoot people within a yard/meter range. That often makes people uneasy.
All in all, my ideal list would be: - 15/16mm f/2.8 fisheye - 24 f/1.4 - 35 f/1.4 - 50 f/1.4 - 85 f/1.4 - 105 f/2.8 macro - 70-200 f/2.8 VR All these lenses should be AFS and 50mm+ lenses should have VR. All should be decently coated to the latest standards.
-- In Hollywood, brides keep the bouquets and throw away the groom. -Groucho Marx-
Pretty soon we're going to be listing all the current production, and a few older, full frame Nikon lenses. But, for me, a full frame is especially important for the lenses where it makes the most difference.
So, I'd suggest the 135 f/2 DC. This lens is pretty tough to use for its intended purpose of portraiture on an smaller sensor. The 105 AIS and DC are not optimal on small sensors either, but the 135 is more disadvantaged. So, I'd really like to see it being more useful as I very much like the images it produces.
Dave Harris Life is short, death is long, there is no perfection in life, only in death; perfect stillness. Enjoy life!
i already have the following glass: all @ f2.8: 20-35, 80-200D (not the swm one), 35-70 and mah brand new 105 VR micro (this last one is an amazing piece of glass, at least as sharp as my beloved old 105 f2.5).
next purchase will be a 200 f2.0 and a 50 f1.4. i'd love a 400 2.8 or a 600 f4, but those will have to wait until my photo business can justify them.
>my $0.02.. > >i already have the following glass: all @ f2.8: 20-35, 80-200D >(not the swm one), 35-70 and mah brand new 105 VR micro (this >last one is an amazing piece of glass, at least as sharp as my >beloved old 105 f2.5). > >next purchase will be a 200 f2.0 and a 50 f1.4. i'd love a 400 >2.8 or a 600 f4, but those will have to wait until my photo >business can justify them.
just got a 400 f2.8 AFS-II second hand in BEWDIFULLLLL condition for fairly cheap.
I sold most of my previous gears to go for the D700 with the following lenses: AF-S 24-70 F2.8G ED AF-S 60mm F2.8 Sigma AF 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG AHP ASM (getting it tomorrow) No budget for the 12-24 Nikon.
I already owned the 80-200 f2.8 I sold the previous 60mm 2.8 D and I now wish I had kept it. Big mistake as I have not got the same results with the new one.
I was planning to sell the 80-200 to get the 70-200 VR. Glad I did not do it.
Wish List (in my dreams) Nikon 200 - 400 F4 VR lens... Please Santa, hear me!
>>I want to purchase a micro and have been trying to >decide >>between the 105 and the 60mm. What is the main >difference >>between the two lenses from a micro perspective? > >Working distance. > >The 60mm will give you barely an inch working distance at 1:1, >the 105mm will give you 3-4 inches. That's a huge difference.
Thanks. I purchased the 105. I like the extra working distance.
I just invested in the 17-35 F2.8 and am a very happy camper. I used to love the 12-24 DX on my D200 but to my joy I find out that 17mm on FX is even wider! At 35mm it's almost normal, flick from FX to DX sensor size for snap shots and you get another working zoom range. Along with a 50mm & 85mm 1.8's and a 70-200 F2.8 I feel complete!
I would like Nikon to fix the 24-120 as an f4 VR-II, and greatly improve the optical quality.
The 24-70 is razor sharp, but it does not have VR, and for vacations with only one lens I would prefer some more reach.
Sometimes I need to get wider than 24mm, but want a lens that can take filters. So how about an 18mm f4?
Moving from DX to FX, 200mm is not enough for wildlife, so since I cannot afford the excellent 200-400, I would wish for an updated 80-400 AFS. I do like some overlap, but the lens does not need to get way down to 80mm, so Nikon could make it a 100 or 120, then open it to F4 (we are dreaming here).
D800 I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?
If it is dream lens it is a dream. So for my purposes I would like to see something ideal for my main area of activity: 28 - 105 mm / f2.0 zoom of the optical quality of 14-24 mm/f2.8. If it had VR system, even better. Fast and quiet focus is also assumed. And if it was not bigger and heavier than my 85 mm/f1.4 ... That would be my dream lens.
In real life not dreaming I do this:
At the moment I like to carry 16mm/f2.8, 20 mm/f2.8, 24-70mm/f2.8. I probably would like to add 180 mm/f2.8 into the travel bag in future.
For special events however I think I would use D3 + 24-70mm/f2.8 + 85mm//f1.4 (for events in exterior or larger areas than ordinary room the last one would be replaced by 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR).
I already have the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 and those are both dream lenses, absolutely wonderful.
My 70-300mm VR however is rather disappointing on the D700. And I don't find the 70-200mm f/2.8 long enough or the 80-400mm good enough and fast enough. So my dream lens right now would be a 100-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-II with image quality in the same league as the 24-70mm.
>I should receive my D700 today in the mail and have selected >3 lenses. > >AFS 17-35mm f/2.8 (purchased with D700) >AFS 50mm f/1.4 (on order) >AFS 105mm micro f/2.8 (just received) > >It will be interesting which lens will get the most use over >the next year. > >Any guesses? > > Hi I'm new here, so far I'm using the 50mm so much in low light... its so much fun so my guess will be the 50mm
What if you just had the 3 lenses above? My budget limited me to 3 lenses and I like to photograph landscapes, nature, sunsets/sunrises, people, faces, my kids sports, and architecture most of the time. I selected these 3 based on the following:
17-35mm: Wide angle zoom, heavy but broad wide angle range. 50mm: Lightweight, unassuming (won't draw as much attention), low light, standard perspective 105mm micro: Macro and portrait
I avoided the 14-24 because of the unprotected front element. The 24-70mm seemed heavy, and I thought I could get similar shots with the 50mm by taking a few steps forward or backward. Most the other zooms with f/2.8 seemed large and special purpose.
>I already have the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 and those >are both dream lenses, absolutely wonderful. > >My 70-300mm VR however is rather disappointing on the D700. >And I don't find the 70-200mm f/2.8 long enough or the >80-400mm good enough and fast enough. So my dream lens right >now would be a 100-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-II with image quality in >the same league as the 24-70mm.
Wow, almost my thoughts too. I have the Canon 70-200/2.8-IS and prefer it over the Nikon version. But I'm really enjoying the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. A 100-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-II with image quality in the same league as the 24-70mm would be the ultimate tele zoom!
Q: 35-70mm f/2.8 AF maybe not your dream? Just my reality.
I'm joining a bit late, but I'm trying to make up my mind on a new camera and I just read Thom's D700 review. I have low-light interests that make the D700 a best choice, but the price difference is still a real barrier for me. btw: I've read his review and this forum again and again looking for info.
I don't see mentioned the venerable 35-70mm f/2.8 AF lens on the D700. I still have my F6 and favorite lenses (24mm f/2.8 AFD, 35mm f/2 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 20mm f/3.5 AIS, 105mm f/2.5 AIS plus 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR and my DX lenses for D200).
While I'd like to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS as soon as possible if I go FX/D700 the body plus lens is a big financial step for me right now.
If users have good luck with the 35-70mm f/2.8 AF on the D700 body, it might help me stem the tide a bit and actually allow me to consider this body over the D300.
Roger It is still ISO, aperture and shutter speed, right?