Nikon D700

davetucker

davetucker

Messages
606
Name
Dave Tucker
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Looking at a Nikon D700, will the following len's work with the D700

1) Nikon 85mm f1.4
2) Sigma 10-20mm
3) Sigma 24-70mm

would appreciate any help.:)
 
1 - yes - very well
2 - only in dx mode (5mp). Personally wouldn't keep this lens
3 - yes - fine

HTH
 
Wow that was fast, many thanks. Why would you ditch the 10-20mm?

Thanks
Dave
 
yep, that will only work in DX mode too ;)

edit: whoops, sorry reread properly. You can keep it but you will only get pics that are 5 point something mp's of the 12 or so you have available. Might be better trading to something FX suited inth elonger term.
 
davetucker said:
Hi

Looking at a Nikon D700, will the following len's work with the D700

1) Nikon 85mm f1.4
2) Sigma 10-20mm
3) Sigma 24-70mm

would appreciate any help.:)
Click to expand...

One lens: the Nikkor 24-70mm AF-S f:2.8. The 85mm f:1.4 is a lovely lens, but you'd hardly use it if you had the 24-70mm.

As the others have pointed out, the Sigma 10-20mm is designed for use on cropped sensors only. Personally I find 24mm wide enough on full frame for most uses, but I do own a couple of 20mm primes for when I need to get a little wider. Anything wider than that and you're looking at pretty significant distortion, but the Nikon 14-24mm f:2.8 is very highly rated if you really must go wider.
 
NorthernNikon said:
One lens: the Nikkor 24-70mm AF-S f:2.8. The 85mm f:1.4 is a lovely lens, but you'd hardly use it if you had the 24-70mm.
Click to expand...

That's a strange thing to say. Depending on the type of photography I think the 85 could easily be used far more than the 24-70. I use my 85 a lot more than the 24-70. The two lenses are completely incomparable and can live together quite happily in a bag of kit.
 
ryanyboy said:
That's a strange thing to say. Depending on the type of photography I think the 85 could easily be used far more than the 24-70. I use my 85 a lot more than the 24-70. The two lenses are completely incomparable and can live together quite happily in a bag of kit.
Click to expand...

The OP's stated elsewhere that he's looking to shoot weddings and portraiture. Now the 85mm f:1.4 is a great lens, but the 24-70mm is far more practical and is so good that spending an extra c£900 on a 85mm makes it an expensive luxury IMVHO. Of course if you're like the current fad of shooting at daftly narrow depths of field then the f:1.4 gives you an advantage, but on an FX sensor f:2.8 is more than shallow enough to acheive pleasing out of focus areas while deep enough to ensure that both eyes are sharp.
 
NorthernNikon said:
The OP's stated elsewhere that he's looking to shoot weddings and portraiture. Now the 85mm f:1.4 is a great lens, but the 24-70mm is far more practical and is so good that spending an extra c£900 on a 85mm makes it an expensive luxury IMVHO. Of course if you're like the current fad of shooting at daftly narrow depths of field then the f:1.4 gives you an advantage, but on an FX sensor f:2.8 is more than shallow enough to acheive pleasing out of focus areas while deep enough to ensure that both eyes are sharp.
Click to expand...

Daftly narrow depth of field!! Just because its a f1.4 lens does not mean you have to use it at that. IMHO its worth the extra money in IQ even if you never shoot at f1.4, sorry
 
I'd sell the 85 1.4 and put the money towards a 70-200 2.8.

Then find a cheap 50mm 1.4 on the board here somewhere for super low light.
 
NorthernNikon said:
The OP's stated elsewhere that he's looking to shoot weddings and portraiture. Now the 85mm f:1.4 is a great lens, but the 24-70mm is far more practical and is so good that spending an extra c£900 on a 85mm makes it an expensive luxury IMVHO. Of course if you're like the current fad of shooting at daftly narrow depths of field then the f:1.4 gives you an advantage, but on an FX sensor f:2.8 is more than shallow enough to acheive pleasing out of focus areas while deep enough to ensure that both eyes are sharp.
Click to expand...

For preference, I shoot weddings with an 85 1.4 on one body and a 24-70 on the other - so saying its an expensive luxery depends very much on your preferences. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the 85.



Hugh
 
I wasn;t aware that there was another thread but for weddings and portraits the 85mm still has a place and would see a LOT of use.

Personally I'm a big fan of the "daft large aperture fad". In fact I've loved it since the day I first picked up an SLR; although I'm not convinced it's daft and it's hardly a fad either. The "daft" large apertures are also very useful in low light as much as anything else and the Bokeh with the 85mm 1.4 is sublime. Ideal for a weddings/portraits tog.

Don't forget - you'll get the best out of your lenses by stopping down a tad so my 85mm is rarley larger than 1.8 and I would prefer to shoot the 24-70 at about F4 although in low light this is rarley ideal.
 
Marvin d martian said:
Daftly narrow depth of field!! Just because its a f1.4 lens does not mean you have to use it at that. IMHO its worth the extra money in IQ even if you never shoot at f1.4, sorry
Click to expand...

Any perceived improvement in IQ over the 24-70mm f2.8 is relevent to measurebators and pixel peepers only. Back in the real world, the IQ of the 24-70mm f:2.8 is more than good enough.
 
boyfalldown said:
For preference, I shoot weddings with an 85 1.4 on one body and a 24-70 on the other - so saying its an expensive luxery depends very much on your preferences. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the 85.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good if you're a pro and you're running two bodies. From what I've read though, the OP isn't.
 
NorthernNikon said:
That's all well and good if you're a pro and you're running two bodies. From what I've read though, the OP isn't.
Click to expand...

No, but I'm sure he's capable of taking one lens off and putting another on without spending all day doing it.
 
ryanyboy said:
I wasn;t aware that there was another thread but for weddings and portraits the 85mm still has a place and would see a LOT of use.

Personally I'm a big fan of the "daft large aperture fad". In fact I've loved it since the day I first picked up an SLR; although I'm not convinced it's daft and it's hardly a fad either. The "daft" large apertures are also very useful in low light as much as anything else and the Bokeh with the 85mm 1.4 is sublime. Ideal for a weddings/portraits tog.

Don't forget - you'll get the best out of your lenses by stopping down a tad so my 85mm is rarley larger than 1.8 and I would prefer to shoot the 24-70 at about F4 although in low light this is rarley ideal.
Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten, but there's nothing wrong with the IQ of the 24-70mm at f:2.8. Yes you'll get better IQ at f:4, but in the real world there's no difference worth worrying about.

As good as the 85mm may be, I just can;t see the value in forking out c£900 on one when the 24-70 is as good as it is, especially when the zoom is far more practical.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Any perceived improvement in IQ over the 24-70mm f2.8 is relevent to measurebators and pixel peepers only. Back in the real world, the IQ of the 24-70mm f:2.8 is more than good enough.
Click to expand...

Realy!! I'm sorry but I dont fall into either group, and having both lenses I appriciate the best of each of them, but the 85 1.4 wins hands down in most cases.
Talk about touchy!
 
There are a fair number of 85mm f1.4 available used, around the £700 mark, from most of the online used dealers.
 
Marvin d martian said:
Talk about touchy!
Click to expand...

I'm no touchy, just amused by fan boys.
coffee.gif
 
LOL, having had the said lens for over 4 years now, being described as a fan boy really does take some doing. Get a grip.
 
NorthernNikon said:
I'm no touchy, just amused by fan boys.
coffee.gif
Click to expand...

Look fella, you're swimming in the wrong pond here. Many of us have suggested that the 85 is an amazing lens and that given the choice it would be the go-to lens over the 24-70. For weddings the large aperture helps in low light and for people pictures the creamy bokeh is just gorgeous.

You don't have to use the 85 but please stop arguing the toss. If you haven't the ability to shoot at larger apertures or the funds to buy the lens in the first place fine. But let's give the OP the decent advice he deserves.
 
NorthernNikon said:
That's all well and good if you're a pro and you're running two bodies. From what I've read though, the OP isn't.
Click to expand...

no - and that wasn't the point I was making. I don't regard this lens as a luxery, but an essential part of my kit bag instead
 
davetucker said:
Wow that was fast, many thanks. Why would you ditch the 10-20mm?

Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

4050193420_c84ef2c353_o.jpg

4050193432_d4abf7b263_o.jpg


As you can see, there's some vignetting at both ends (and all the way through the zoom range) when the 10-20 is used on a D700 in Fx mode.

(Thanks [I think!!!] to Yv for the use of her 10-20 to take these exaple shots)

The Sigma 12-24 will have a wider angle of view on a D700 than the 10-20 does on a Dx body. The walls that appear to be parallel are in fact at 90* and I'm wedged in the corner. The builder is about 8' away from me.
3362501965_ea9374830c_o.jpg
 
ryanyboy said:
But let's give the OP the decent advice he deserves.
Click to expand...

That's exactly where I'm coming from. All the gushing over how good the 85mm f:1.4 is missing the fact that there are many other consideration to take into account when choosing lenses, not least budget and practicality.
 
Why can`t well accept that everyone is different and has different likes and dislikes?

Is the 1.4 worth the extra over the 1.8? Not to me it wasn`t, but i`m sure it will be to some.The op has a 1.4, he should keep it if he can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top