Critique my gear.

Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
606
Location
Ohio
Well since my D700 is "In transit" My switch from Canon to Nikon is nearing and I figured I would post my planned purchases to get some feed back before I hand over the cash.

Body D700

Lenses,
24-70 AF-S 2.8 Its here and ready to go.

50mm 1.4 Ive read mixed reviews but generally it seems to be a popular lens.

20mm I haven't decided yet if it will be the Nikon or sigma.

Tamron 70-200 2.8. Very little info about this lens. I tried it on a a canon and it seemed to perform well. I have seen one guy on flickr has it in Nikon mount, but doesnt have any large images posted. I will buy it locally with a 14 day return window so I can try it out. VR isnt an issue for me since I rarely shoot stationary objects. If it doesnt work out than I guess I will spend the pennies on the Nikon VR.

Flashes
at least 3 SB-800s
 
T

TristanCardew

Guest
1. I'm jealous.
2. Buy a Nikon 70-200. You seem to be going with the best of everything else..why let yourself down on what could be the best lens of your kit?
3. Are you getting Pocket Wizards to trigger the flashes? Please don't rely on CLS..it's not all that magical, especially for moving subjects.
4. Hopefully you have the money to do all of the above..because then your kit will be exceptional!

Enjoy.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,118
Location
England
50mm 1.4 Ive read mixed reviews but generally it seems to be a popular lens.
Yeah I've read mixed reviews too. Are Sigma about to (or have they already) release a 50mm 1.4? I think that would be the one to go for (Nikkor can't win everything)
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,638
Location
Orlando, FL
I'm curious about your choice of the 20 mm prime. The 14-24 is an excellent lens on the FX sensor. The 50, of course, is always an decent choice, although the f/1.8 is no slouch and a lot cheaper. I have heard some good things about the Tamron 70-200. You might consider the SU800 IR controller instead of one of the SB800's.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
606
Location
Ohio
14-24 has a chunky price tag, and I cant use a polarizer on it.

I have never wished I had something wider than 20mm, and its a not something I would use regularly, but I would use.
 

Commodorefirst

Admin/Moderator
Administrator
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
21,176
Location
Missouri
I think the tamron 70-200 is a good choice because down the road I believe (no reason, I just do) that nikon will improve and release a new 70-200 copy that you will want to use on the D3.

I agree with above, buy a SU800 to go with 2-3 SB800 flashes.

I would also get the 17-35 and hold off on the 20 prime, but so much to consider.

Also I am using my collection 1.4 lenses much much less with my D3 and instead I am using the 24-70 and 105VR.

However, that said, the 50 1.4 is a great range on full frame! Seriously consider that 17-35 though! :wink: it can use filters, and not to bad an expensive beauty.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
606
Location
Ohio
Well my local dealer told me that the Nikon rep had hinted at an updated 70-200 VR "Once the FX line was fully established" which is why I am holding off.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
622
Location
San Diego, CA
The 70-200 allegedly has corner sharpness issues on a FF. If you are going to go with a screw drive tele, may I suggest a used 80-200/2.8 AF (not AF-S) instead? With some patience it can be bought for $600+ and has every bit the IQ of the 70-200, but not the VR that you say you do not need.

As far as primes go, you might want to wait a month. There is mounting noise that Nikon will release a fresh set of f/1.4 AFS primes in late August.

P.S. Where did you get your D700 from? I am trying to figure out if there is a dealer that consistently has been amongst the first to ship pre-ordered Nikon gear,
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,128
Location
Superior CO
the nikon 20mm has terrible flare, I have one but rarely use it.

the 17-35 is the most versatile wide angle option as I see it, and its what i use.

24-70, I have one of these, can't go wrong here.

50mm will be redundant next to the 24-70. if you want a light option, I would suggest a pancake lens.

not sure about what the scoop is on tele zoom options but I'm using a 180 2.8 and its fantastic, don't buy a mid tele before considering it.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,169
not sure about what the scoop is on tele zoom options but I'm using a 180 2.8 and its fantastic, don't buy a mid tele before considering it.
Been tempted by this lens but wondering how much useful it is given that it is not so far off the 80-200 on price and has the same speed.

I know it is lighter though but right now, I am leaning towards the zoom or a 135.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,128
Location
Superior CO
my base kit is 3 lenses, 17-35, 24-70, and 180.
if that last one was another 2.8 zoom, it would really be hurting in the weight department as if it doesn't hurt already. if your sacrificing a zoom on the wide end then a adding to the long end might just even it out.

on the 180, the performance corner to corner at all apertures is totally fabulous as far as I am concerned. I am a demanding user but not a lens tester or nit picker. The primary advantage over the zooms other than weight would be flare resistance and stray light management. The detailed reviews of the 70-200 I have seen show that the backlight performance is no better than terrible. The 180 does very well in this department in my experience. The out of focus rendition is also superbly smooth if your that kind of guy.

I have heard good things about the 105/135 DC, if you want to be a bit closer spaced then they may be right but I have no real experience with them.
 
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
524
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
I'd also suggest taking a very long look at the 17-35 before going for that 20mm. I use it now on my DX bodies but I'm longing for the day that I obtain an FX body....I will appreciate this lens even more.

Ted
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,638
Location
Orlando, FL
I'd also suggest taking a very long look at the 17-35 before going for that 20mm. I use it now on my DX bodies but I'm longing for the day that I obtain an FX body....I will appreciate this lens even more.

Ted
You won't you know - it vignettes badly below 24 mm on an FX body :mad:
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,128
Location
Superior CO
You won't you know - it vignettes badly below 24 mm on an FX body :mad:

is it really so bad?

17mm, F/4.0
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


22mm, F/16, with FILTERS !!!
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


just about any lens will have corner fall off, especially wide lenses. For a wide zoom, to ask for less fall off, you would be asking the lens designer to deliberately darken the center. either way, the vignetting you mention is not anything near objectionable in my opinion. too even and the image looks unnatural in my opinion anyways. this lens seems to have just enough so that its there if you look for it, otherwise, its just part of the image.

even the visible fall off at 12mm on this Sigma 12-24 doesn't seem to detriment my images.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,638
Location
Orlando, FL
I have not seen what you are suggesting. At 17mm, as the nature of all wider zooms, there is a bit of vignetting(this is on full frame FX). However I find it a wonderful FX lens.

Ted
Whoops - my bad . . . I misread the previous post as 17-55 which is of course, a DX lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
S

scooptdoo

Guest
why not the sigma 20mm .for the fx sensor you maintain true 35mm lens settings.the sigma is a real bargan for a fast 1.8 lens.the 20mm nikkor is 2.8 .and twice the price.i concider my 20mm sigma a real jewel and im shooting dx format.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom