I'm very happy about what they left in the D700 as compared to the D3. I'm a bit puzzled, though, by the lack of new non-specialized lenses. There's the 24-70 f/2.8 of course, but how about something lighter? AF-S primes, or some updates on their full-frame "consumer" zooms?
I'm debating if I want to pick up a 24-85 f/2.8-4 as a "walk-around" lens for that D700 I just pre-ordered. I'm curious what lenses are you all planning to use with this camera - especially those of you for whom the D700 delineates your move to full frame digital?
I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di that I'm planning on using as a walk around lens. It's not a heavy lens and I've been very happy with it using slide film in my F4. I'm interested in seeing how it performs on the D700.
>I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di that I'm planning on >using ...
That is a fine lens - I use it on my Canon gear and have considered getting one for Nikon. My D700 has been dispatched it seems and no lenses here yet I am going 17-35mm, 28mm 2.8 AI-S, 85mm 1.8, 180mm 2.8 and CZ 50mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ... once it all starts arrivin' and if the quality is there then the Canon stuff will be sold.
As someone coming part to Nikon from Canon I have to say the range of good zooms seems small and the primes seem on average to be pretty old designs ... not a problem necessarily, but I think Canon are stronger. Ok if you're buying carefully, but the choice doesn't seem to be there across the range.
THere are rumors afoot that Nikon will be releasing several new primes at Photokina; rumors include updated 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and a 24/1.4. I'm hoping that if this rumor is true, the 24 comes in at a price I can work with, as that's a lens I'd like for my D300s and also for the D700 that I'm pretty close to ordering.
Of course the D3X is also rumored to be up to be announced at Photokina....
Well, there is the 24-120 AF-S. But it does seem odd to have so few modern FX walk-around choices, especially when you see the proliferation of DX lenses in that category.
The PC lenses are neat, but they are kind of specialized. It seems odd that we haven't seen updates to the (non-micro) primes from wide to short tele. The 70-200 is in real need of an update for FX, too.
All in good time, I suppose, but while most Nikonians seem impressed by what Nikon has done in the last year or two with respect to digital bodies, there is a lot of disappointment that we haven't seen some of the glaring gaps in the lens line-up filled.
I agree completely. Nikon seems to be forgetting its own history. In the '80s they made a number of superb, moderately-priced zooms with a constant f/3.5 or f/4 speed. I'd also like to see an updated 35-70mm f/2.8 since that was compact (by today's standards) and sold for well under $1,000.
>I'm praying for a 24-120 constant F4 with VRII. They are crazy >if they don't do that.
I just traded my 17-55DX lens for a 24-70, in anticipation of my D700; I wanted to trade somewhat early and avoid the rush. I would have preferred a 24-120 VR, but the image quality is poor. I have read reports that claim the 24-70 is the best zoom ever made by Nikon.
I'm not that interested in primes since the zooms are so good now, with one exception: I'm considering a wide prime, perhaps something in the area of 16mm, bacause in some cases 24mm is not wide enough. I'm not that interested in the 12-24 due to cost, and the inability to use a lens filter to protect the lens.
D800 I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?
>I just traded my 17-55DX lens for a 24-70, in anticipation of >my D700;
Me too, but it was to support my D3.
>I'm not that interested in primes since the zooms are so good >now, with one exception: I'm considering a wide prime, perhaps >something in the area of 16mm, bacause in some cases 24mm is >not wide enough.
I think much of the desire for new primes is about having apertures faster than f/2.8. With all due respect to the fantastic zooms Nikon is turning out, none of them fulfill that need.
Westside Guy, I have a new Nikon 24mm f3.5 TCE tilt shift lens that I look forward to trying on this new FF digital body. I also plan to use my 17-35 lens and my 28mm f2.8 AIS lens (CRC). It will be great for landscapes, full frame again, Debra
I'm hoping my 24-120 VR fills the "walk around" lens need.
I must have one of the good ones. While not as sharp as my 24-70, the 24-120 VR makes me happy.
It has been my general use lens with the D70s and the D200. I always found it slightly lacking in the wide end with Dx format, the D700 should fix that. I don't mind that it is slow, for general purpose I value the focal range and size/weight (the D700's high ISO should also help with the limited aperture).
If Nikon ever releases a new version of the 24-120 VR I will be first on the pre-order list. Just don't make it a pro lens with f2.8, small and light with the newest glass and newest VR is what I want.
I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus
I'm also pondering lenses and the imminent step to FF. I know that for any given aperture, with FF I'll get less DOF than DX. I also know that with the D700 I'll have stonking high ISO to play with.
Currently I have a 70-200mm f2.8 on a DX sensor. It does the job just the way I like it - the right range and the right speed. Possibly rather too shallow given that AF is not always perfect, so I normally only go to f3.5 except in emergencies. So, given that with the D700 ISO/noise will not be an issue, and that FF has shallower DOF than DX, do you think it's a valid option to use the Nikon 70-300 VR instead? It's slower but I can increase ISO, and FF will keep the DOF shallow if needed.
The other options are to stay with the 70-200 and crop, or get a Sigma 100-300mm f4, but I'd prefer to avoid the bulk. Then again bulk also equals pose value and that always goes down well with the punters...
I have yet to use digital FF so your thoughts would be welcomed. I like the 70-200 f2.8 very much but it's going to be short with FF.
So you should be good to go retaining both 70-200 and 70-300 in your kit. I also think that retaining a DX camera for pairing with the 70-200mm and a wide zoom on the FX camera would be a dynamite walk around combination.
And one other option: Adding the 1.4 teleconverter to your 70-200mm gives you the equivalent to the Sigma 100-300mm f4. SteveK My Nikonians gallery 'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
I'm surprised at people wanting FF pro performance and then hoping for small compact zooms. There's a big sensor to cover which means bigger, heavier lenses and you wouldn't want poor edge/corner performance with a D700 surely? FF lenses are always going to be bigger and heavier than DX ones. I'm after image quality and a chunky lens is the price one has to pay I feel.
>Have you seen the instructions for the 12-24 and the 24-70 >f2.8? There are warnings about the reinforced plastic!
It's the glass I'm more concerned with. Plastic keeps weight down, no?
>Could it be that some people feel "inadequate" if >they don't have something big, thick, and heavy to display?
I have no idea. I choose lenses on range, image quality and maximum aperture. I do not believe that any fast zooms for a FF sensor are going to be small and light. If you want small and light, the D700 is not for you.
>And remember, unlike the professional model (D3), the D700 is >expected to be a fairly high volume seller. It has overlapping >markets. It needs to serve those markets.
I suppose there will be people who buy a £2,000 body and put a £50 lens on it, yes.
I generally like to have 2 sets of lenses for my camera: (1) a high quality professional set, and (2) a small, light, versatile set.
Set number (1) produces higher quality images, but it is heavier, requires more frequent lens changes, is much more conspicuous to the average passer by. It is less convenient. I try to have set (1) with me when I want to get the highest quality photos and/or where it is easy to set my gear somewhere as a home base. Examples include concerts, events like family reunions or weddings or graduations.
Set (2) is better for vacations or other uses where I don't want to look like a professional photographer walking around with tons of gear. For that, you give up a slight amount of image quality. Set (2) goes with me on such excursions as walking down the boardwalk at the beach, going to the playground with my son or going miniature golfing. Set (2) is useful for those times when I may need to zoom from 24mm to 135mm without switching a 2 pound lens for another 2 pound lens.
Just because the D700 will produce great images with great glass doesn't mean that I want to carry a 24-70 2.8 and a 80-200 2.8 down the boardwalk at the beach. The D700 with a Nikon consumer zoom will beat out a compact point and shoot every day and twice on Sundays
I'd love to be able to buy a Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6 AF-S VR with very good image quality.
The D300 + 18-200 combination is perfect for my common travel photography: light and good enough quality. For the D700 I would need something equivalent. I would go for the D700 because of its high ISO performance.
If you look at my ExposurePlot statistics below for the focal lengths I have used so far while travelling, it is clear why. The 24-120 will be a bit short for me. A 28-200 would be slightly shorter with the D700 compared to my current kit, but still fine.
Yes, I know the graph looks a bit odd, and might indicate that I am not a good photographer, but this is real data and shows my real photographic life!
Sat 26-Jul-08 08:22 AM | edited Sat 26-Jul-08 08:29 AM by monteverde_org
The Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC on FX is roughly equivalent to the 18-200 on DX & has VC (Tamron's VR) & is virtually the same size: 560g vs. 555g, 96mm vs. 99mm. You loose only 1/3 stop @ the long end & the Nikon brand name.
...got through shooting my 24-70 on a new D700, and the images were outstanding...also my 35 f/2D...pics were absolutely beautiful on the D700. DOF is a little more evident (thinner)...so f/2.8 and f/4 will make for some gorgeous portraits. F/5.6-8 was ridiculous.
The 24-70 seems to be a perfect mate for the D700 in terms of size, handling and balance. It's a match made in heaven. Now that I have my D700, I am not in any hurry to get an all-in-one super zoom. If nikon introduces one, I'll get it, but I think the 24-70 will find a nice home mounted on the D700.
Everyone's preferences are different, and I find the 17-55 f2.8 is almost perfect on my D200 - perhaps a little wider than I often need, and sometimes a tad short. Let's say 18-60mm would be perfect with a DX sensor. That equates to 27-90 with a D700, so it's clear that the 24-70, whilst an outstanding lens, is going to be a bit short at times.
I also use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which gives me the perfect reach for reportage, so now I'm going to need a fast 300mm lens instead, which will have to be f4 or slower...
Moving to FX may be technically better but it's not without disadvantages. Hmmm.