Putting a 70-300 on any pro body is, in my opinion, a sin.
Aimed at me I suppose!?
Why would that be??? the 70-300 matched with the D700 is a cracking combo for people who can not justify shelling out thousands on long range fast primes.
Nigel
I know what you mean't, but it still seems odd to me putting this 70-300 VR on a pro body like the D700. Yes, its a great lens, but if you have a D700...then I would've thought you'd be able to add some even better glass. It all comes doen to the cost in the end, and this is the best I could get, and on a D5k, is brilliant. But, there is better glass about, and surely the D700 would deserve such glass....
Yes Lawrence, that is the commonly held belief on this forum
.
For the record; I bought the 70-300mm with my D700 because I wanted to build up my camera equipment around a good
body with lots of functions, so that I could learn to use them all, and I didn't have much more than £2,000 to spend (not all D700 owners are millionaires, contrary to popular opinion). I decided that I would add good glass to that body, as and when I could afford it and once I'd really figured out which kind/s of photography I most wanted to do.
Whilst the 70-300mm was certainly sharp (when stopped down a little), I found that the images went soft past about the 240mm mark and I couldn't get the shutter speeds that I wanted for wildlife shots in my local forest (where it's pretty dim most of the time) :|.
So, last year I invested in the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II from Nikon, which is capable of producing extremely sharp images, even at f/2.8, and with a 1.4x TC on, can almost match the 70-300mm for length. But this lens cost me over five times what I paid for the 70-300mm, so you'd expect some improvement.
Further to that, having realised that I really enjoyed bird photography, I also purchased Nikon's 300mm f/4 AF-S prime lens. This is probably the sharpest lens I've ever used and the extra aperture width over the 70-300mm means that if AFs better in lowish light. Again, that was a big financial commitment.
However, if I was only shooting in daylight and below 240mm, I would never have changed that 70-300mm. At, say, 150mm and f/8, I really doubt that I could tell the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm apart :shrug:.
Also, although I still have the D700 and use it for most of my photography, all of my wildlife stuff is done using the (little plastic
) D90! As soon as I've finished typing this, I'm going to stick the 300mm f/4 (and a Kenko 1.4x TC) onto it and go off into the woods to enjoy my hobby, without any fear of being judeged 'a sinner' for putting 'pro' glass on an 'amateur' body :razz:.
I suppose that what I'm saying here is that there are no
rules about which lenses must go with which cameras and that you should be guided by what you feel you
need, rather than what you think you
should have. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it
!
Enjoy your new lens
.
I'm going out in 2 hours and going to have a play!!! This is, after the D5k, the best money I have ever spent!!!! I know why glass is more important!!!
Whoo hoo! New lens Friday!!!
