Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

New York, US
724 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
edoruan Basic Member
Thu 05-Feb-09 01:51 AM

I've been out shooting with my new D700 this past week. Testing might be a better word, because basically I'm trying to get an idea how this new camera performs with my arsenal of lenses . . . not trying to make good images. Overall, this camera does exactly what I hoped (and expected) it to do---it produces noiseless images at ISO 800. And ISO 1250 or 1600 are acceptable (My ISO 1600 images have passed Alamy's QC).

Both the Nikon 28 f/2.8 and the 105 f/2.5 ai-s manual lenses performed beautifully, though it did take me a few minutes to get back to focusing and setting the f/stops and shutter speeds myself again. (How lazy I've become.)

The 60 f/2.8 macro images look good, but this is a poor general-purpose lens because of its weight and mediocre sharpness at infinity. I'll be leaving the 60 at home for close-up work and instead carrying the lighter, faster 50 f/1.8, who's sample images were marvelous. This lens is a $120 gem!

My new 14-24 f/2.8? This is an exotic beast, not at all tame; I'll have to be careful and keep it on a short leash. Will I bring it on a trip? Do I need it at all? Hmm. The thing is I took a long walk with my 20 f/2.8, and the results of shooting that day with that lens were the best out of everything I did with the D700 . . . and I can carry this lens (20mm is pretty wide on a FF) in a coat pocket.

And so we come to my normal zoom---the 24-85 f/2.8-4. I really wanted this zoom to work out, but wishing don't make it so. It produces occasional overexposures, usually on the first frame after the camera has been inactive for a few minutes. I'm thinking the cold yesterday might have effected the diaphragm. Well . . . maybe.

There's nothing wrong with the sharpness of this zoom; I've captured some very sharp images with it. But the AF is not always where I need it to be. (The AF issue came up a few times with some of the other lenses too.)

I'm going to go back and read the manual, focusing on AF modes and "fine tune," and then I'm going to walk some of these lenses around once more. For now, I'll plan to do any real shooting with the 50 and 105 instead of the 24-85.