D700 owner general lens question

Seanazz

Seanazz

Messages
980
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently took the plunge and purchased a D700. I have had it for a couple of weeks. Totally love it.
Previous camera was a d3200, which was a good introduction to regular DSLR use.
Anyway, lenses. I have a small collection of cheap lenses that have given me
an idea of how the camera works. I like taking shots of buildings/streets and environments. Also people.
I think wide/midrange appeal to me at the moment.

So I want to buy a lens that will compliment the camera.

Spent far to much time looking at this stuff , and narrowed it down to 16 - 35 ( Despite the distortion issues that people blog about ) - then I went on to 17 - 35, but concerned about age and squeaking noises.
I think the one that really sounds an good all rounder is the 24 - 70. But at the moment it may be a bit to expensive, for the level of skill i'm at right now.

Just wanted to post this for general thoughts.
I am aware there is no one lens, or indeed, answer.

My collection of cheap lenses.

My flickr page, photos of various stuff, plus lots of my art crap :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phatcatz/

Thanks for reading.



View attachment 7576
 
Last edited:
If you can afford a Nikon 24-70 or the older but just as good 28-70, then do so. Don't use skill level as a reason not to, you are using a D700 after all, which is not exactly a beginners camera.

Plenty of cheaper and lighter alternatives of course, but you will probably upgrade at some point anyway, so save yourself some money and go straight for the best!
 
The Nikon 24-70 is wonderful, but expensive. The tamron 28-75 is also a 2.8 and a very good lens, and a fraction of the cost. The Nikon 24-120 f4 is also considered to be very good. The 16-85 you mentioned is a dx lens so best avoided on the d700.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
If you can afford a Nikon 24-70 or the older but just as good 28-70, then do so. Don't use skill level as a reason not to, you are using a D700 after all, which is not exactly a beginners camera.

Plenty of cheaper and lighter alternatives of course, but you will probably upgrade at some point anyway, so save yourself some money and go straight for the best!
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy. Didn't know about the 28 - 70, will check that out, for sure :)
 
cambsno said:
The Nikon 24-70 is wonderful, but expensive. The tamron 28-75 is also a 2.8 and a very good lens, and a fraction of the cost. The Nikon 24-120 f4 is also considered to be very good. The 16-85 you mentioned is a dx lens so best avoided on the d700.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, Simon. Useful info. Also, my mistake. I meant to type 16 - 35 f4 :)
 
Also consider a 35-70 F/2.8d. Great lens and way cheaper than the massive 28-80 2.8.
Personally I'd give the tamron 28-70 a miss. My example was not very good at all. Very soft down the RH side. Needed f/11 to even start to look in focus
 
i bought the mrs a Tamron 28-75 for her D700 & she loves it. awesome lens for the money :banana:
 
AF-S 28-70 = £600 2nd hand thereabouts..
I like mine.

A 24-70 is usually the wrong side of £750
 
The so called "Holy Trinity" of FF Nikkors is the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f/2.8 and priced accordingly. I have a 24-120 Nikkor (the current f/4 version, not the old variable aperture one) and I love it. Somewhat cheaper than the faster 24-70 and has the benefit of VR.
 
Thegreatroberto said:
Also consider a 35-70 F/2.8d. Great lens and way cheaper than the massive 28-80 2.8.
Personally I'd give the tamron 28-70 a miss. My example was not very good at all. Very soft down the RH side. Needed f/11 to even start to look in focus
Click to expand...

I've used three of the tamron lenses. I'm sorry that you had a duff copy.

Mine was a soft as a razor blade


Tamron test by Sir SR, on Flickr
 
Yeah....I've heard that the 35-70 is a cracker for the money!

Were there a couple of different versions of that lens?
 
Nikon 24-70 is a superb lens, but it isn't 3 or 4 times better than, say for example, the Sigma 24-70 [which is about the price difference last time I looked] and I own both so can say that with some experience. However, as always with sigma, you need to make sure its a good copy! The nikon 16-35 I want to own, dont yet, but have hired one and found it to be no where near as bad for distortion as some reviewers would have you believe, however, for general use, it is possibly a bit short, but if you want to do wider stuff without going silly wide then it is a great alternative. Can't comment on tamrons or the like as I dont own any of them. Also, I know you posted a link to your flickr, but it might be worth know what you might want to shoot with your new purchase too, as this can help guide the advice in the right direction.
 
Sir SR said:
Yeah....I've heard that the 35-70 is a cracker for the money!

Were there a couple of different versions of that lens?
Click to expand...
Don't know about different versions. It's Nikon's "pro" lens before the massive 28-70 d.
Bit it's not a light lens. All metal and glass. You can feel the quality.
 
Yv said:
Nikon 24-70 is a superb lens, but it isn't 3 or 4 times better than, say for example, the Sigma 24-70 [which is about the price difference last time I looked] and I own both so can say that with some experience. However, as always with sigma, you need to make sure its a good copy! The nikon 16-35 I want to own, don't yet, but have hired one and found it to be no where near as bad for distortion as some reviewers would have you believe, however, for general use, it is possibly a bit short, but if you want to do wider stuff without going silly wide then it is a great alternative. Can't comment on tamrons or the like as I dont own any of them. Also, I know you posted a link to your flickr, but it might be worth know what you might want to shoot with your new purchase too, as this can help guide the advice in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Hello Yvonne, thanks for the reply. I briefly touched on what I want to shoot, buildings/streets and environments. Also people.
Up to recently my photography has always been a combination of reference collecting for my artwork, or recording events around my art activities ( exhibitions, convention and travel ).
Lately i have become more interested in learning about photography in general. But more specific, composition and looking at the subjects in a more painterly graphic way.
I could go on, but i guess this enough :)
 
Ed Sutton said:
:plus1:

If the OP has GAS the new 18-35 might complement his current lens line up. The old one ain't bad, if a little flare prone, for little money either.
Click to expand...

Dave, i have to ask. What is OP and what is GAS ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top