D700 + nik 16-35 vs D300 + sigma 10-20

[orangeframestudio]

Was trying to avoid a pointless 'this' vs 'this' thread, but wondered if anyone had any views all the same.

Currently i shoot a d300 with the sigma 10-20mm for 99% of my 'recreation' shots.
I also own a few other lenses, but worth mentioning are nikon 24-70 f2.8 and nikon 300 f4.

The d300 and sigma are great fun, id say good quality and sharpish, but i just feel there is no comparison to when i stick on one of the 2 above nikon lenses.
The pictures seem to jump out of the screen compared to the sigma.

Being ultra wide angle i appreciate may have something to do with it, but has anyone have any experience with these combos?

Im thinking of upgrading to a d700 and nikon 16-35 which seems to be a great combination, but trying to think if the cost will be worthwhile.
I am happy with the shots, but if they became as good as the 24-70 shots, id be over the moon and feel the cost more than justified.
I dont think i have a 'bad copy' of the sigma, it seems sharp, the pics just dont seem to pop so much thats all.

Also wondered if anyone in the NW with this combo fancied a meet up and a beer or 2 in exchange for a demo/test?

ooooohhh, and Happy Christmas btw

 

[TCR4x4]

I have a d700 and 16-35. I did have a 24-70 too, but sold it after owning the 16-35 for a few weeks. I used to have the sigma 10-20 on a d90, there is no comparison between the 16-35 really.
I'd say the 16-35 is on the camera for 95% of my photos.

 

[texfoto]

I'm afraid you might be diagnosed with full frame-itus. It starts when you notice the differences in pictures between full frame and DX equipment. At this point the only cure is a full frame body and ditch the DX stuff. Haha :-D

Seriously, wait until you put your 24-70 on a full frame body. I had a D300, Tokina 11-16, 17-55, & 16-85. Great equipment but in a bit of a different league, especially if you pixel peep. Once you start noticing the difference in full frame it's hard not to upgrade. You already have FX glass so you are in good position to move to a full frame body. Oh, and the 16-35 is a fantastically sharp lens. With VR it competes well with the other FX UWA's as well.

 

[p1tse]

I only have a d90 but have seen d300 and 24-70 is great, wish I could afford it

 

[SteveF]

Was trying to avoid a pointless 'this' vs 'this' thread, but wondered if anyone had any views all the same.

Currently i shoot a d300 with the sigma 10-20mm for 99% of my 'recreation' shots.
I also own a few other lenses, but worth mentioning are nikon 24-70 f2.8 and nikon 300 f4.

The d300 and sigma are great fun, id say good quality and sharpish, but i just feel there is no comparison to when i stick on one of the 2 above nikon lenses.
The pictures seem to jump out of the screen compared to the sigma.

Being ultra wide angle i appreciate may have something to do with it, but has anyone have any experience with these combos?


Hi Ben

A pal of mine shoots with a D300s and uses the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.... I have seen a few of his images that in my opinion compare with those from a different pals D700 with 24-70...

I think that if you can get the opportunity try the Tokina 11-16 on your D300 to see if it provides the "pop" you are looking for before going for the new body....

 

[texfoto]

Hi Ben

A pal of mine shoots with a D300s and uses the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.... I have seen a few of his images that in my opinion compare with those from a different pals D700 with 24-70...

I think that if you can get the opportunity try the Tokina 11-16 on your D300 to see if it provides the "pop" you are looking for before going for the new body....

I had the Tokina. Great lens but some folks on Nikon forums swear by the Sigma over the Tokina. I preferred the Tokina myself. To me the difference is negligible and I would consider this more of a lateral move than an upgrade and not worth the trouble IMO.

 

[rampanthamster]

i used to have a tokina 11-16 for my d90 but sold it when i got the d700 and bought a 16-35. Even though the 16-35 is about twice the cost, i'd say it's worth it for the extra range and the vr. Coupled with the d700, it really is a beast of a lens for any landscape or uwa type stuff.

I have the 24-70 as well but am questioning if i really need that as i prefer to use primes for non-wide angle type stuff...

 

[DoctorBob]

The lack of 'pop' may be due to the unfortunately large aperture coupled with the ultra-wide angle meaning that, basically, you have a very broad DOF.

That would be much improved by going full-frame, even though the aperture remains relatively slow at f/4.. so yes, you should do it

 

[Jonhob]

I use a FF D3S and have a crop sensor D300S. I very rarely use the D300S. If your budget allows, go for the D700. you will never go back to a crop!

 

[p1tse]

All this talk of full frame, never been privileged to have a go with one, but on my list if I win the lotto lol

 

[Cheng]

*What* exactly is it you find lacking with your 10-20 and D300?

I have not tried the Nikon 16-35, but I do have a D300s and a Sigma 10-20 (the RRP for the 10-20 is ...roughly £400?) and a D3 and a Sigma 12-24 (Again on it's release it was £700 I suspect).

The 12-24 being almost twice the price of the 10-20 should really show it up - but you know what? It doesn't. The D300s IMO gives me far far sharper shots, corner to corner, across the frame. Really impressive stuff. The D3 and the 12-24, however, whilst still sharp, isn't as sharp, infact the extreme corners are actually not that great at all. If I really wanted to choose a camera for a guaranteed sharp technically perfect shot, I'd pick the D300s and 10-20. I honestly cannot fault that combination at all. Again, I haven't tried the 16-35 on FX but I suspect it won't be providing you much more than you're already getting. You're not gaining much except VR and 1-2 stops extra ISO, for a lot more cost and weight. Can you tell I'm thinking about selling up full frame?!

 

[scottthehat]

*What* exactly is it you find lacking with your 10-20 and D300?

I have not tried the Nikon 16-35, but I do have a D300s and a Sigma 10-20 (the RRP for the 10-20 is ...roughly £400?) and a D3 and a Sigma 12-24 (Again on it's release it was £700 I suspect).

The 12-24 being almost twice the price of the 10-20 should really show it up - but you know what? It doesn't. The D300s IMO gives me far far sharper shots, corner to corner, across the frame. Really impressive stuff. The D3 and the 12-24, however, whilst still sharp, isn't as sharp, infact the extreme corners are actually not that great at all. If I really wanted to choose a camera for a guaranteed sharp technically perfect shot, I'd pick the D300s and 10-20. I honestly cannot fault that combination at all. Again, I haven't tried the 16-35 on FX but I suspect it won't be providing you much more than you're already getting. You're not gaining much except VR and 1-2 stops extra ISO, for a lot more cost and weight. Can you tell I'm thinking about selling up full frame?!

i have a d300 and d700 but the d700 picture quality is in a different class to the d300.

 

[Cheng]

i have a d300 and d700 but the d700 picture quality is in a different class to the d300.

In what respect? DoF/Bokeh, High ISO.....Yes, totally agree.
With the right lens on the D300 there is no reason why it couldn't be as sharp as a D700. As an owner of both DX and FX cameras, I'm just stating my opinion that for sharpness and IQ I'd pick *my* D300s and 10-20 over *my* D3 and 12-24. I might add my 12-24 is a good copy so I would think...perhaps my 10-20 is an amazing copy.

 

[Cheng]

i have a d300 and d700 but the d700 picture quality is in a different class to the d300.

Also in respect to the OP's comment 'the images appear to 'jump' out of the screen' - I find it difficult to believe that changing from a DX ultra wide angle to an FX ultra wide angle would achieve that. And if you were to compare equivalent lenses (let's say D300 and 18-200 vs D700 and 28-300) would you honestly be able to tell much difference / 'feel' the class difference between the cameras? I don't think I could or would?

 

[Starastin]

probably depends where u use the stuff.

 

[texfoto]

In what respect? DoF/Bokeh, High ISO.....Yes, totally agree.
With the right lens on the D300 there is no reason why it couldn't be as sharp as a D700. As an owner of both DX and FX cameras, I'm just stating my opinion that for sharpness and IQ I'd pick *my* D300s and 10-20 over *my* D3 and 12-24. I might add my 12-24 is a good copy so I would think...perhaps my 10-20 is an amazing copy.

It isn't just sharpness, it is the overall look. That includes color rendition, DOF, increased dynamic range, etc. No doubt you can get sharp pics on DX. I don't think that is in question the OP is posing. He is asking whether the FX combination of a D700 and 16-35 is noticeable better.

Also in respect to the OP's comment 'the images appear to 'jump' out of the screen' - I find it difficult to believe that changing from a DX ultra wide angle to an FX ultra wide angle would achieve that.

If you don't have the equipment I would say go try it out. Some people think it is negligible and a waste of money, or think that it is some how cheapening a DX equipment setup. Others think it is what they have been looking for as an improvement in their overall image quality and ability to handle more diverse photographic situations. There is a reason that magazines mention full frame as the way to go for the "serious" landscape photographer. It's not required but the pros seem to like FX hence the price increase.

I have the 24-70 as well but am questioning if i really n

eed that as i prefer to use primes for non-wide angle type stuff...

The 24-70 is an awesome lens, no doubt about it. But, there is something about the focal length of 24-70 and the size of lens that gets people wondering about some alternative. I like the 24 end, don't need and can't use the 70 end much so I sold it to save size and weight. I know a few togs who only have the 16-35 on the wide end and sold their 24-70. The 24-70 is made for events but otherwise you are hauling around a lot of glass. You can see folks switching to the 24-120VR F4 as an alternative because if they are going to carry around that size of lens, it better have greater reach. It's the same dilemma with the 17-55 and 16-85 on DX. Reach or 2.8? Personally I sold all of my big equipment and picked up a 24 1.4 and 135DC F/2. Couldn't be happier and it all fits (along with my D700) in my former DX bag which I never sold. That was a nice bonus.

The 12-24 being almost twice the price of the 10-20 should really show it up - but you know what? It doesn't. The D300s IMO gives me far far sharper shots, corner to corner, across the frame. Really impressive stuff. The D3 and the 12-24, however, whilst still sharp, isn't as sharp, infact the extreme corners are actually not that great at all. If I really wanted to choose a camera for a guaranteed sharp technically perfect shot, I'd pick the D300s and 10-20. I honestly cannot fault that combination at all. Again, I haven't tried the 16-35 on FX but I suspect it won't be providing you much more than you're already getting. You're not gaining much except VR and 1-2 stops extra ISO, for a lot more cost and weight. Can you tell I'm thinking about selling up full frame?!

I do believe what you are saying about the 12-24 not matching up sharpness-wise and I think that has a lot to do with the 12-24. The Sigma 10-20 is a very good lens and still chosen over the Nikon 10-24 by some folks on the Nikon forums. It is also true that if you try and compare price versus gain, you can convince yourself all day long that FX is ridiculously expensive or that it is worth every penny. Speaking from experience, I would say that is a fairly consistent opinion across the board that it is expensive. Whether that is a waste or not is up to the person spending the money. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

I've been from DX, to DX/FX at the same time, to FX zoom, to selling FX zoom and going prime. It hurts the pocketbook. But the OP already has some FX glass and already notices the "pop" of the 24-70. I'm telling you from experience on FX and reading many forums about that lens that the 16-35 will not disappoint. The only thing I'll add is if you don't shoot much at all with filters then might as well get the 14-24 because that is the big kahuna of all UWA's....literally.

 

[orangeframestudio]

wow, thanks for all the replies... a great response

To answer a few bits that have cropped up...

I did try the Tokina 11-16, it did perform well, but seemed to suffer from flare much worse than the sigma. Obviously caring about flare and UWA landscape is pretty crucial.

As for what exactly doesn't pop? Im guessing a tad of sharpness, but more vivid, clarity and punch that you get with the 24-70mm, hard to explain but probably the crucial bit too.


Ive just started on a Lee filter system, hence the 16-35 too.

I think i might have a touch of FF - itus


Just wish Nikon would hurry up and bring out the new d700 which has got to knock £150 ish off the current 2nd hand value and make the idea more feasible