Nikon Full Frame Lenses

gad-westy

gad-westy

Messages
6,605
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Good day folks. This maybe one of those things where I'm just seeking assurance or sharing ideas so apologies if this goes nowhere.

I'm starting to weigh up whether 2012 might be the year I switch to full frame and buy a D700. It's niggling away at me. I don't need FF but I want FF, you know how it is. I don't have tonnes of cash slopping around so it would need to be more or less self financed by selling some of my current kit. That is where I'm umming and arghing a bit as I've got my kit to a stage where I have all the bases that I'd like covered. If I were to go full frame, I would definitely need to thin the lens collection out somewhat (not necessarily a bad thing).

I currently have:
D300
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Nikon 50 mm 1.4 AF
Nikon 50 mm 1.4 AFS
Sigma 180mm Macro Lens

If I were to go for a D700 I would sell everything except the 70-300 and the 50mm 1.4 AFS. I could live without a Macro lens for the time being but I would definitely want something wide-ish for landscapes and in an ideal world a very wide angle as well. If money were no object I guess I'd get a 24-70 and and 14-24 but those are both mega bucks and I think out of the question. So just after some ideas on the alternatives. Assuming I had a £600 lens budget (I tend to buy used) what would be your choice?

So far I've thought about:

16-35 VR - Seems very nice, but I'm worried about it being too wide sometimes (though I could always bung the 50 on)

28-70 2.8 - Another great sounding lens but it would swallow my whole budget and wouldn't be especially wide

18-35 and 35-70 - I like this idea, both sound like nice lenses that have fallen a little out fashion and are available cheaply. If I was really lucky I might have change for an 85mm 1.8 too.

24mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 - I'm sure this would be a nice combo but I do worry a little about only using primes as it's not traditionally been my style.

Or should I blow the budget and find a 24-70 and hope I never want for anything else?

Or maybe I should be keeping the D300 and forgetting this silly FF idea?

Or any other ideas I haven't even considered?
 
Tape a number 7 over the 3 on your camera and pretend, by far the cheapest option :D

Id suggest save up a bit more, wait till you have around £1000 surplus then have another look and see if you still want FF in a month or twos time. Then if you do, you will have a bit of a better budget to do something about and the options such as the 24-70 will be opened up to you.
 
What about the f/4 24-120 Nikon, the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? All much cheaper alternatives to the 24-70mm - I don't know how they fare and I'm sure there are compromises but if cost is an issue then it could be worth considering...
 
IMHO, unless you are photographing events you don't need a mid zoom, my D700 bag contains an 18-35, 35mm & 50mm primes (because they are small so I can have two) and a 70-300.

If I could I'd upgrade the 18-35 to a 16-35 as I'd like it a little wider and with less complex distortion and I also quite fancy an 85mm prime, the f/1.8 version as it is smaller.

But, in summary I think an UWA, a fast normal lens and a tele-zoom is all anyone really needs to cover most non-specialist situations.
 
Just a thought.

28-300 at 300mm. Convert from RAW to jpeg and a 100% crop.No processing at all other than stated.

28-300100Crop.jpg


Never thought I`d get a superzoom, but I won some brass and bought one, quite pleased with it so far.
 
I have been thinking the same recently, my partner has promised me a new camera towards the end of the new year, so, when the new D800 comes out in the new year I am guessing that price of the D700 will drop. I would keep the 50mm f1.4 afs and the 70-300mm, sell the rest and buy the 16-35mm with the D700, i think this would make a rather good kit. If you specifically need a zoom for the mid range that the 35-70mm would fill the gap.
 
faddius said:
Tape a number 7 over the 3 on your camera and pretend, by far the cheapest option :D

Id suggest save up a bit more, wait till you have around £1000 surplus then have another look and see if you still want FF in a month or twos time. Then if you do, you will have a bit of a better budget to do something about and the options such as the 24-70 will be opened up to you.
Click to expand...

Cheers. This has certainly crossed my mind. The 24-70 sounds fantastic but I do wonder if its a lens that I need or just want. Most of my outdoor stuff would typically be at the widest end of this and I have a 50mm and a telephoto that sort of cover the other end, hence my reluctance. I know it is very much almost the default choice to hang on the end of the D700 and I'm sure for very good reason.
 
scottthehat said:
You could keep the macro lens and just buy a wide lens.
Click to expand...

Being honest, I love my macro lens but it doesn't get a huge amount of use. I'd likely be just as happy with a smaller macro lens or none at all for the time being.
 
specialman said:
What about the f/4 24-120 Nikon, the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? All much cheaper alternatives to the 24-70mm - I don't know how they fare and I'm sure there are compromises but if cost is an issue then it could be worth considering...
Click to expand...

I hear the 24-120 F4 VR is a massive upgrade from the older variable aperture version. I like the sound of it I must admit though not seen any used example to gauge prices. Would also be interested to hear how sharp it is vs. the 24-70. The extra stop means little to me for what I would use it for.

I know nothing about the Tamron so will look it up. Typically I don't like the way Tamron lenses feel. I know that sounds seriously weird but I do like the aesthetics and ergonomics of a lens as well as how they perform optically. Worth a look though.
 
Nawty said:
IMHO, unless you are photographing events you don't need a mid zoom, my D700 bag contains an 18-35, 35mm & 50mm primes (because they are small so I can have two) and a 70-300.

If I could I'd upgrade the 18-35 to a 16-35 as I'd like it a little wider and with less complex distortion and I also quite fancy an 85mm prime, the f/1.8 version as it is smaller.

But, in summary I think an UWA, a fast normal lens and a tele-zoom is all anyone really needs to cover most non-specialist situations.
Click to expand...

What do you think of the 18-35. It's about £200 used vs. £650 for the 16-35 so would be good to know that the extra cash would be worth it.
 
Will look into the Sigma 12-24 though not sure how useful that range will be to me. Seems very wide. 18-35 probably appeals more if the optics are similar.

28-300 doesn't really appeal I'm afraid, mainly because I like my 70-300 too much!
 
zak5ive said:
I have been thinking the same recently, my partner has promised me a new camera towards the end of the new year, so, when the new D800 comes out in the new year I am guessing that price of the D700 will drop. I would keep the 50mm f1.4 afs and the 70-300mm, sell the rest and buy the 16-35mm with the D700, i think this would make a rather good kit. If you specifically need a zoom for the mid range that the 35-70mm would fill the gap.
Click to expand...

Cheers. I quite like this as it leaves me with a set of very decent lenses without really compromising on anything in particular. The 16-35 is a big chunk of cash though so may need some persuasion that it's a big jump up from the the 18-35. Again, I'm not sure that the constant aperture or VR would be all that useful to me though it's no bad thing to have it.

Sorry for the number of posts. Haven't quite mastered multi quoting.
 
For me the 18-35 is a perfectly decent lens, sharp enough across the whole image for my purposes when stopped down (but not amazingly sharp if you pixel peep), lightweight too.

Only issue is that it has fairly pronounced distortion and there is no Lightroom preset to deal with it, not really an issue unless you shoot lots of sea-scapes (bent horizons) or architecture. I understand that the 16-35 does also have distortion I also understand it is fairly easy to correct (and presumably as it's new there will be a LR profile for it).

Oh, also, 18mm isn't quite as wide as I'd like.
 
zak5ive said:
when the new D800 comes out in the new year I am guessing that price of the D700 will drop.
Click to expand...

If the rumoured specs and price of around £2200-2500 are correct I doubt it'll make the slightest difference to the price of the D700, new or used...
 
I've had quite a few of the ultra wide options on FX, namely the Nikons 16-35 VR, 18-35, 20-35 2.8 and the Sigma 12-24. I'm not really doing much landscape stuff at the moment so I'm happy with the 24mm end of my 24-120 f4 VR, but if I was I'd get another Sigma 12-24 mainly for the unique FOV that 12mm gives and the total lack of distortion - it puts Nikon to shame in that department and is brilliant for architecture where you want those straight lines to stay straight.
 
Nawty said:
For me the 18-35 is a perfectly decent lens, sharp enough across the whole image for my purposes when stopped down (but not amazingly sharp if you pixel peep), lightweight too.

Only issue is that it has fairly pronounced distortion and there is no Lightroom preset to deal with it, not really an issue unless you shoot lots of sea-scapes (bent horizons) or architecture. I understand that the 16-35 does also have distortion I also understand it is fairly easy to correct (and presumably as it's new there will be a LR profile for it).

Oh, also, 18mm isn't quite as wide as I'd like.
Click to expand...

Cheers, need to take a careful look at these two. If I opted for the 18-35, that leaves a lot of change for something tasty, maybe a wide prime or an 85mm prime. But if the 16-35 is leagues better, I'll go for it. There is also a 17-35 I notice but not sure where this fits in the grand scheme of things.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If the rumoured specs and price of around £2200-2500 are correct I doubt it'll make the slightest difference to the price of the D700, new or used...
Click to expand...

I suppose it will depend how many people sell their D700's. Flooded market will mean lower used prices but if everybody keeps them as you say, it'll have no effect.

Any news on when it's expected by the way. May well be worth me waiting to see what happens.
 
jpw said:
I've had quite a few of the ultra wide options on FX, namely the Nikons 16-35 VR, 18-35, 20-35 2.8 and the Sigma 12-24. I'm not really doing much landscape stuff at the moment so I'm happy with the 24mm end of my 24-120 f4 VR, but if I was I'd get another Sigma 12-24 mainly for the unique FOV that 12mm gives and the total lack of distortion - it puts Nikon to shame in that department and is brilliant for architecture where you want those straight lines to stay straight.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'm still a little hesitant on something as wide as the sigma. I love the Tokina 11-16 I have now, it's super sharp but I find myself looking for opportunities to use it and then sometimes using it when I should have used something longer and not getting the result I want. I don't take much architecture as such, though cityscapes are a favourite.
 
gad-westy said:
Cheers, need to take a careful look at these two. If I opted for the 18-35, that leaves a lot of change for something tasty, maybe a wide prime or an 85mm prime. But if the 16-35 is leagues better, I'll go for it. There is also a 17-35 I notice but not sure where this fits in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Given the choice (/funds) I would take the 16-35 over the 18-35 any day.

Granted you could get more lenses with the money but are you really going to be taking indoor portraits in low light? if not then you don't really need the 85mm 1.8 as the 70-300 will cover that range.

The 17-35 is an older lens which is big and has great build but optics not really better than the 18-35 (similar sharpness but a bit less distortion I think).

If I were you I'd keep the AF-S 50 1.4, 70-300 and buy a D700 + 16-35.
 
Trouble with ultra wides is that unless you use them all the time, you dont use them, if that makes any sense.

Ive owned or used the Nikon 14-24mm, the Sigma 12-24mm, Nikon 16-35mm and Nikon 18-35mm and currently own the Sigma 12-24mm

Best value to me is the Sigma 12-24, its not as sharp as the Nikon 16-35 but is less than half the price used, is sharper than the Nikon 18-35 and offers the extra 6mm which is amazing and only costa about £100 more used, the 14-24 is stupidly priced compared to the Sigma, to me the Sigma is the best overall compromise mainly because there is zero distortion which is brilliant if you shoot cityscapes, archictechture, interiors, seascapes or landscapes with horizontals or anything where straight lines are critical, the other 3 suffer from horrible distortion.

My trouble is i buy an ultrawide for a specific job then sell it on as i cant justify keeping any wide angle which will only get used a few times a year

Anyone want a Sigma 12-24mm
 
gad-westy said:
I suppose it will depend how many people sell their D700's. Flooded market will mean lower used prices but if everybody keeps them as you say, it'll have no effect.

Any news on when it's expected by the way. May well be worth me waiting to see what happens.
Click to expand...

True, however the reduced frame rate may tempt some users to hold on to their D700s, I, for one, won't be "upgrading" if those specs are accurate.

I suspect, if they are distancing the models by giving them different sensors etc, that the D800 will probably be announced at the same time as the D4, which should be in the next month or so, if the latter is to be available in time for the Olympics.
 
gad-westy said:
I hear the 24-120 F4 VR is a massive upgrade from the older variable aperture version. I like the sound of it I must admit though not seen any used example to gauge prices. Would also be interested to hear how sharp it is vs. the 24-70. The extra stop means little to me for what I would use it for.

I know nothing about the Tamron so will look it up. Typically I don't like the way Tamron lenses feel. I know that sounds seriously weird but I do like the aesthetics and ergonomics of a lens as well as how they perform optically. Worth a look though.
Click to expand...

Apparently so - the older variable f/3.5-45 was supposed to be okay, nothing special, but I know a few members on here have gone for it and been very impressed. Ffordes have the VR2 version new for £849 and MPB have them used for £730. I have seen them go for well under £700 privately but it's still a relatively new lens and fairly niche, what with so many people go for the obvious 24-70mm f/2.8.

Tokinas are far better built than Tamrons, although both companies produce amazing optics in some of their lines. I agree about the feel although Nikon does a few duffers to :)
 
Nawty said:
Given the choice (/funds) I would take the 16-35 over the 18-35 any day.

Granted you could get more lenses with the money but are you really going to be taking indoor portraits in low light? if not then you don't really need the 85mm 1.8 as the 70-300 will cover that range.

The 17-35 is an older lens which is big and has great build but optics not really better than the 18-35 (similar sharpness but a bit less distortion I think).

If I were you I'd keep the AF-S 50 1.4, 70-300 and buy a D700 + 16-35.
Click to expand...

Much appreciated. I'm kind of leaning this way at the moment but not made a decision. I might sell some bits and bobs and then wait and see what happens with the D800.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Trouble with ultra wides is that unless you use them all the time, you dont use them, if that makes any sense.

Ive owned or used the Nikon 14-24mm, the Sigma 12-24mm, Nikon 16-35mm and Nikon 18-35mm and currently own the Sigma 12-24mm

Best value to me is the Sigma 12-24, its not as sharp as the Nikon 16-35 but is less than half the price used, is sharper than the Nikon 18-35 and offers the extra 6mm which is amazing and only costa about £100 more used, the 14-24 is stupidly priced compared to the Sigma, to me the Sigma is the best overall compromise mainly because there is zero distortion which is brilliant if you shoot cityscapes, archictechture, interiors, seascapes or landscapes with horizontals or anything where straight lines are critical, the other 3 suffer from horrible distortion.

My trouble is i buy an ultrawide for a specific job then sell it on as i cant justify keeping any wide angle which will only get used a few times a year

Anyone want a Sigma 12-24mm
Click to expand...

This sums up my feelings towards the Tokina 11-16 quite nicely. I have taken some shots with it that I love and simply couldn't have achieved with something longer but those shots are few and far between. Of all my lenses, it's that and the macro lens that I could live without, well and the spare 50mm 1.4 that I somehow acquired. But what appeals about the 16-35 is that it covers quite a wide end but has a decent range at the other end.
 
specialman said:
Apparently so - the older variable f/3.5-45 was supposed to be okay, nothing special, but I know a few members on here have gone for it and been very impressed. Ffordes have the VR2 version new for £849 and MPB have them used for £730. I have seen them go for well under £700 privately but it's still a relatively new lens and fairly niche, what with so many people go for the obvious 24-70mm f/2.8.

Tokinas are far better built than Tamrons, although both companies produce amazing optics in some of their lines. I agree about the feel although Nikon does a few duffers to :)
Click to expand...

Cheers. I'll take a look at those.
 
I don't think the D800 will cause a flood of used D700 cameras as people buying the D800 will probably be upgrading from DX but waiting for the D800 to be released rather than buying a body which has been on the market a while.

The only thing that would make me want to buy a D800 is if something really bad happened to my D700.
 
I've had my D700 for nearly 3 years now and have slowly built up my lens collection as and when funds permit, having previously been on DX. Missed my old Sigma 10-20 so initially bought a Sigma 14mm prime which was amazingly wide but suffered from terrible lens flare, so eventually replaced it with the Nikkor 16-35mm. I'd also had a Sigma 24-70 that i used on my F100, and this was adequate for intial use on the D700, but as soon as I could I bought a mint 28-70 which is a hell of a lens. I'd have liked a 24-70 but even used they were too expensive and tbh, I've not missed the extra 4mm at the wide end. But you know what, if the 28-300 had been launched, I'd probably just have bypassed the 28-70 and sold my 70-300 as well.
 
Spent too much time this morning looking at Ken Rockwells camera/resolution comparison site and have decided that my first FF camera will be a Nikon film body or maybe a 5DMk11 using my Nikon primes. :lol:

Happy new year

Pete
 
There's no reasoning with a desire. Logic plays a small part. We've all been there with our photographic decisions. From an outsider's point of view, I'm thinking, 'Why doesn't he think about a D7000, or wait for the D400 ?'.

Of course if you're set on FF, then, as mentioned before, the Tamron 28-75mm is superb on a D700. You may want wider of course; and I know what you mean about quality feel and ergonomics, it's why I love my Nik 80-200mm so much.

You are getting stacks of good advice here, and that's for sure. Good luck whichever way you choose.
 
Last edited:
Scott

Can't speak personally as I'm a Nikon owner just Mr Rockwell for iq (thinking resolution) seems to rate in order a film camera, then 5dMk11 (with a good lens) over the Nikons aprt from D3X. If I wasn't supposed to be decorating the spare bedroom I'd dig out the link.:thumbsdown:

Not trying to hijack this thread as I'm delighted with my Nikkor 28mm MF prime on my D200.

Pete
 
Peter said:
Scott

Can't speak personally as I'm a Nikon owner just Mr Rockwell for iq (thinking resolution) seems to rate in order a film camera, then 5dMk11 (with a good lens) over the Nikons aprt from D3X. If I wasn't supposed to be decorating the spare bedroom I'd dig out the link.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Ah yes, 'real raw' as Ken calls it.
 
Peter said:
Scott

Can't speak personally as I'm a Nikon owner just Mr Rockwell for iq (thinking resolution) seems to rate in order a film camera, then 5dMk11 (with a good lens) over the Nikons aprt from D3X. If I wasn't supposed to be decorating the spare bedroom I'd dig out the link.:thumbsdown:

Not trying to hijack this thread as I'm delighted with my Nikkor 28mm MF prime on my D200.

Pete
Click to expand...
mr rockwells reviews needs lots of salt.
i have posted this many times, i cant see any difference for nearrly twice the mps.

d700
D700INBI00100.jpg

5dmk 2
E5D2INBI00100.jpg

d700 cropped and upscaled to match 5dmk2.
D700INBI00100c.jpg

5d mk2
E5D2INBI00100c-1.jpg
 
Scott - that mannequin scares me. Don't post the pics so big, i'll have nightmares after looking at such atrocious clothes and the size of that forehead :lol:
 
Scott

I do recall seeing these before and I don't have any issues with your comparisons.

Probably too much pixel peeping on my behalf

Pete
satisfied old Nikon old owner
 
Cheers once again folks. Not made any decisions yet. I do have an option on a potentially cheap Nikon 28-70 2.8. Not sure about it yet though. I may put this whole thing to bed for a week or two. I'll update when I make a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top