Focal length confusion...

S

Steveo_Hants

Messages
763
Edit My Images
Yes
Have I got this correct?

A 24mm lens on a D700 would give the same viewing angle as a 15mm lens on a D300?
 
Well I think the D300 is a 1.5x crop factor body whereas a D700 is 1x crop. So a 24mm lens on a D700 has a 35mm equiv. of 24mm.

A 24mm on a D300 has a 35mm equiv. of 36mm.

So to get the 24mm look a 16mm lens would be required on the D300.

Note you get more DOF per FOV with a crop body and telephotos look longer but, you miss-out on the shallow DOF and wide-angle stuff a full-frame user has.

Sorry if thats a little confusing.
 
Ok cool I am thinking about getting a D700 for a safari trip I have booked in May next year and was worried about my wide angle options but it looks like my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 will be pretty wide on the D700.
 
Also, is the Sigma DC or DG?

DC will not work on FF
 
Steveo_Hants said:
Ok cool I am thinking about getting a D700 for a safari trip I have booked in May next year and was worried about my wide angle options but it looks like my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 will be pretty wide on the D700.
Click to expand...

be more then wide enough for most things on Safari
 
Steveo_Hants said:
Ok cool I am thinking about getting a D700 for a safari trip I have booked in May next year and was worried about my wide angle options but it looks like my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 will be pretty wide on the D700.
Click to expand...
I think you should be more worried about your telephoto options. Your 300mm lens will feel like only 200mm(*) once you put it on a D700. Plus, the D700 has a very low pixel density so you don't have a huge ability to crop your images.

(*) The viewing angle of a 300mm lens on FX is the same as for a 200mm lens on DX, which is what you're used to.
 
StewartR said:
I think you should be more worried about your telephoto options. Your 300mm lens will feel like only 200mm(*) once you put it on a D700. Plus, the D700 has a very low pixel density so you don't have a huge ability to crop your images.

(*) The viewing angle of a 300mm lens on FX is the same as for a 200mm lens on DX, which is what you're used to.
Click to expand...

I am planning on keeping (and taking) my D300. On the game drives use my Sigma 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4xTC on the D300 and my Nikon 70-200 VR on the D700. Then when landscape options pop up just swap the lens on the D700. What you think?
 
Steveo_Hants said:
What you think?
Click to expand...
I think you'd be better off with a Canon 7D and a 100-400L. ;)

Seriously though, personally I wouldn't want to take that much gear. I wouldn't want to rely on a teleconverter with my main wildlife lens, because it will be dusty and I wouldn't want to be swapping lenses too often. I'd want IS/VR on my main wildlife lens in case the driver isn't keen on switching the engine off. I would want something wider than 24mm to capture those huge African scenes and skies.

You may disagree, which of course is your right. But you did ask!
 
StewartR said:
I think you'd be better off with a Canon 7D and a 100-400L. ;)

Seriously though, personally I wouldn't want to take that much gear. I wouldn't want to rely on a teleconverter with my main wildlife lens, because it will be dusty and I wouldn't want to be swapping lenses too often. I'd want IS/VR on my main wildlife lens in case the driver isn't keen on switching the engine off. I would want something wider than 24mm to capture those huge African scenes and skies.

You may disagree, which of course is your right. But you did ask!
Click to expand...

I wish I never asked now, you've got me worried!!!!
 
What about a Nikon 80-400VR on the D300 and something shorter on the D700?

I've never really used my Sigma 300mm f/2.8 since I got it so could sell it on to fund all this!

Decisions, decisions!!!!
 
StewartR said:
You really don't want to ask me about the Nikon 80-400 VR.
Click to expand...

:D

Steve, I would go for the cheaper 70-300 VR on the D300, and leave it on it, and put a 17-35 f2.8 on the D700 and leave it on it.

As Stewart says you do not want to be messing around changing lenses in that dusty atmosphere.

I had the 80-400 VR, if you know its limitations you will get good results out of it, it is light and compact and flexible, however I think it is too expensive for what it is, and it is Nikons oldest VR lens, so the technology is dated. The 70-300 VR is of a much newer design, and whilst you loose 100mm (which is not a lot on large animals) it represents much better value for money, and is light and compact.

I think you need the flexibility of a zoom for the times that the animals get close.
 
StewartR said:
You really don't want to ask me about the Nikon 80-400 VR.
Click to expand...

Steveo_Hants said:
Well you have to tell me now!
Click to expand...

This is what I said last time someone asked:

StewartR said:
The good news:
* Good solid build quality.
* Decent optics.

The not-so-good news:
* Autofocus is very slow and noisy.
* No full-time manual focus.
* Bizarre and unintuitive focus range limiter.
* Very bizarre implementation of VR (it might have been Nikon's first ever VR lens for all I know); there's a mode where the VR is not activated when you half-press the shutter, but is activated when you fully press the shutter. I can't for the life of me work out what that's for.

By comparison with the Canon 100-400L, it's a real embarrassment. I'm amazed Nikon have persisted with it for so long.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top