Posted by Zack Clothier on August 3, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I am thinking about switching over to Nikon and am looking for advice on a good kit upgrade for a D700. I do not want to purchase the kit lens that is bundled with the D700 (the 24-120mm), anyone have any suggestions? I would prefer a 2.8 constant, but would settle for something a little slower depending on the price difference.
I think it really depends on what you shoot the most. 14-24 f2.8 is a legendary lens when it comes to landscapes. Another very popular "kit" lens people tend to get is the 24-70 f2.8. Both are around 1600-1800. These would be my first suggestions.
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 3, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Zack,
I've had my D700 for over a year. I like it. Great low light performance, speed and reduced noise at high ISO.
And, I had a host of lenses [manual] from my previous film days.
For speed the new auto and VR lenses are great. But, I've found the old lenses still do a great job in resolution.
So, if you are equiping, and don't need speed, consider the bargains in the older Nikon lenses.
Some are generally better than others; individual lenses can occasionally outshine all others in its class.
Rorslett has most Nikkor lenses rated on his site. Somewhat subjective but give a general idea.
I did invest in the 14-24 but my manual 28 mm does as well in my eyes--but no zoom.
the fisch
Posted by Glenn Starr on August 3, 2010 at 9:04 PM
Zack,
I've had my D700 fpr 2 years. Own the 24-70 f2.8 which is an excellent, and very very sharp, mid-range zoom. I spent the last year debating between the 14-24 and the 17-35. The point of the debate is the 14-24 is sharper but doesn't take filters and the 17-35 does. Out comes Nikon with the 16-35 F4 VR. Debate ended. The 16-35 is nearly as sharp as the 14-24, sharper than the 17-35 and can be had for about $1100 vs $1800 for the 14-24/17-35. Losing a stop is more than made up with VR and high Iso performance of the D700. But, hey who shoots landscapes wide open anyway? The only downside to the 16-35 is noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm, which is easily corrected in Photoshop. The 16-35 also comes with a plastic barrel and filter threads. Ken Rockwell reviewed this lens and raved about. His recommendation is if you don't have the 14-24 then buy the 16-35.
VR, Glenn
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Match the gear to the use. Can you give a few clues as to what you want to photo? What are you using now that you don't like? Switches are expensive and often don't make much difference in your shots. An exception might be if you are after Nikon's great flash system though. Do you do a lot with flash?
Kent in SD
Posted by Jack Graham on August 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM
If it were me and on a budget( as I always am) I'd look at HEK (www.keh.com) and look into a 28-70, 80-200 and 15-35 ( all 2.8 lenses ) and can be found fairly cheap--but be careful who who buy from... for me KEH is the best for used stuff. You'd be saving lots of $$ over the current 24-70, and 70-200 . These not that old lenses are VERY, VERY good.
JG
Posted by Zack Clothier on August 4, 2010 at 2:21 AM
I am currently (or was) shooting with the Sony A700 until the shutter decided to go after just a year of use (and of course the warranty just expired). I really like the high ISO performace of the Nikon cameras as I do a lot of low light work. I thought about keeping the A700 and using it for wildlife since I own the 100-300mm f4, and using the new Nikon as a landscape camera. The Sony shows noise at anything over ISO 400, its even noisy at that ISO.
Posted by Glenn Starr on August 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM
Zack,
IMVHO, another way to look at this is to invest in the lenses 16-35 and/or 24-70 and purchase the D700 either as a used or refurbished model. The D700 is 2 years old and likely to be refreshed in the coming year. The refresh is likely to have a higher MP sensor and also likely to retain much of the high-iso performance of the D700. Hi-iso appears to be Nikon's current focus with mega-pixels being second. Both the 16-35 and 24-70 are nano-coated, which goes a long way to dealing with flare and also appears to boost contrast. Both of these lenses work well with the D3x where the older lenses do not. I guess I believe in much of what I have been taught, and learned from this NPN forum, that investing in glass is a better investment than the body, which unfortunately, becomes obsolete far faster than the glass you mount on it.
Glenn
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 4, 2010 at 8:55 AM
For wildllife, I'd skip the D700 and buy either a used D300 or a D300s. Your money would be much better spent on a fast long lens than a camera. A D300, solid tripod with first class ballhead, and an older Nikon 500mm f4 P would be a pro caliber wildlife set up and beat anything you could afford based on D700.
Discussion
8 repliesI will be shooting primarily landscapes with it.
I've had my D700 for over a year. I like it. Great low light performance, speed and reduced noise at high ISO.
And, I had a host of lenses [manual] from my previous film days.
For speed the new auto and VR lenses are great. But, I've found the old lenses still do a great job in resolution.
So, if you are equiping, and don't need speed, consider the bargains in the older Nikon lenses.
Some are generally better than others; individual lenses can occasionally outshine all others in its class.
Rorslett has most Nikkor lenses rated on his site. Somewhat subjective but give a general idea.
I did invest in the 14-24 but my manual 28 mm does as well in my eyes--but no zoom.
the fisch
I've had my D700 fpr 2 years. Own the 24-70 f2.8 which is an excellent, and very very sharp, mid-range zoom. I spent the last year debating between the 14-24 and the 17-35. The point of the debate is the 14-24 is sharper but doesn't take filters and the 17-35 does. Out comes Nikon with the 16-35 F4 VR. Debate ended. The 16-35 is nearly as sharp as the 14-24, sharper than the 17-35 and can be had for about $1100 vs $1800 for the 14-24/17-35. Losing a stop is more than made up with VR and high Iso performance of the D700. But, hey who shoots landscapes wide open anyway? The only downside to the 16-35 is noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm, which is easily corrected in Photoshop. The 16-35 also comes with a plastic barrel and filter threads. Ken Rockwell reviewed this lens and raved about. His recommendation is if you don't have the 14-24 then buy the 16-35.
VR, Glenn
Kent in SD
JG
IMVHO, another way to look at this is to invest in the lenses 16-35 and/or 24-70 and purchase the D700 either as a used or refurbished model. The D700 is 2 years old and likely to be refreshed in the coming year. The refresh is likely to have a higher MP sensor and also likely to retain much of the high-iso performance of the D700. Hi-iso appears to be Nikon's current focus with mega-pixels being second. Both the 16-35 and 24-70 are nano-coated, which goes a long way to dealing with flare and also appears to boost contrast. Both of these lenses work well with the D3x where the older lenses do not. I guess I believe in much of what I have been taught, and learned from this NPN forum, that investing in glass is a better investment than the body, which unfortunately, becomes obsolete far faster than the glass you mount on it.
Glenn
Kent in SD