1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

D700, 24-70 do Baltimore's Inner Harbor

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR Forum' started by lanthier, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. My wife had a meeting in Baltimore so my 7 year old assistant and I tagged along and spent a few hours in the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore, Maryland. I only brought one lens with me and the D700. I enjoyed the trip but was SHOCKED at how much vignetting I experienced with the 24-70 and CP (B+W Kaesemann). It was very noticeable and hard to correct in CS3. Also, the field curvature mentioned in some reviews is also very hard to correct (the buildings are straight! There are no leaning towers in Bmore)... The 24-70 is not the lens it used to be on DX... :mad: ... That said, I did get some decent shots... But I am seriously considering selling my 24-70 after this outing...

    1. US Constellation

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

    2. My Assistant on the Water Taxi

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

    3. Domino Sugars Corporation

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

    4. Inner Harbor through the rear view of the Water Taxi

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

    5. Lucky Transporter

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

    6. National Can Company I

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

    7. National Can Company II
    [I swear I did not stage this shot in any way!!! :biggrin:]

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

    8. Assistant turned model in Fell's Point Shop

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  2. i'm sorry you feel this way about the D700 and 24-70
    but.... the lens was MADE for FX bodies and NOT the D300

    what give?

    i DO like the series, by the way
  3. the weird thing is.... the complaints you have about this combo... especially about the FIELD CURVATURE issues... is something i've noticed as well, but thought that i must have been crazy
  4. Greg, if you would see these pictures from this trip, you would be shocked by the amount of vignetting and look at those leaning buildings... never noticed when I used this lens on my D300. I may have discovered that I have a bad lens???

    Glad you enjoyed the visit :) 
  5. i'm not sure that it's a bad lens
    i never talked about it here.... because i was sure that i was wrong....
    but, the 24-70 on my D3.... doesn't thrill me as much as others here feel

    the keystoning with the 24-70 on the D3 is far worse than the 17-55 on my D200.... for whatever reason

    i have a B+W filter on mine as well.... but, not a CP
  6. dutchtrumpet


    May 2, 2007
    I am interested in this distortion. I am buying a d700 this week and assumed a 24-70 to go with.

    Any other with this much first hand experience with curvature?

    Thanks for you posting...I love the inner harbor. When I was in the Air Force Band we would tour their often and it was my favorite spot.
  7. cleoent


    Dec 21, 2007
    San Jose, Ca
    i think the pics are great :) 
  8. Jaws


    Mar 27, 2007
    Columbia, MD
    What direction were you pointing your camera? If you were pointing it toward east Baltimore you may have shot the 'Leaning Tower of Pisa' in Little Italy...

  9. The leaning buildings look as expected for short focal lengths pointed upwards. I can do the same with the 17-55 on DX.
    About the vignetting: Was it vignetting also without the CP mounted?
  10. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    I like the series. Nice images.

    One technical point though, the use of the term field curvature is not quite exact, I think, or I misunderstood.

    Field curvature has nothing to do with barrel/pincushion distortion or converging verticals or anything like that.

    Field curvature means that the lens does not produce flat field of sharpness. For example when you photograph a facade of a building using the center af sensor you get sharp center but corners are soft. The corners are not soft because the lens is soft but because the corners are out of focus. If you use one of the outer af sensors, you have sharp edge and corner on that side, but the center is out of focus.

    In essense the focus field is like the inside of a sphere, not a flat plane like a brick wall.

    All real world lenses have curving field, but some lenses have a lot tighter curve or "smaller sphere" that is very visible. Shooting a building facade with the 17-55/2.8 DX wide open is a good (well... bad actually) example. Switching between center/outer af sensors and refocusing has a BIG difference on the resulting image.

    Knowing one's lenses and the amount of field curvature is important, especially if you wish to focus and recompose. Some lenses just cannot be recomposed wide open, while macro lenses usually have extremely flat field of focus (not mathematically flat though, but the "inside of a sphere" is HUGE) and thus there's not much difference between center and corners.

    Sorry for the rant, I possibly misunderstood what you meant.
  11. orfeas


    Jul 8, 2008
    I also thought 24-70 f/2.8 was a superb lens.
    Images shown here
    disappointed me.
    I'm not saying field curvature is the most important part in lens performance
    in that price we cannot tolerate anything less than perfect

    After all Nikkor AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D IF
    is still in production with 1/3 of the price
    and nice features such as
    little distortion, fine MTF resolution, little CA, no field curvature, no vignetting, higher tele focal length
  12. peter,
    i appreciate the education
  13. 1FASTZ


    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    This is really disappointing to hear about the D700 and 24-70. Definitely puts me off from wanting one now. I was all set to get one. Sure seems like poor planning on Nikon's part because I think the 24-70 and 70-200 rock on my D50 and D300.

    Anyone know how the beast and the D700 perform with respect to vignetting because I've heard that the 80-200 does better than the 70-200 on vignetting with the D3/D700 and was hoping that the beast might do better than the 24-70 as an option?
  14. THanks Peter, I was assuming it was the field curvature that is referred to in the lens reviews, I think Photozone... SLRgear, does not mention it though.
  15. Thanks for you kind comments. Maybe I had too high expectations, but it was a very bright day, so I wouldn't expect such levels of vignetting.

    What I like about the Inner Harbor is that everything is concentrated in fairly circumscribed location.
  16. How does that lens (24-85) perform on FX though? I agree, I would expect better from a lens in this price range...
  17. genera


    Oct 6, 2005
    The extreme leaning is some of your shots is a result of how you're aiming the lens not the lens itself. If you had held the camera level for those shots the leaning shouldn't be noticable, much like the leaning in #3 isn't very noticable. Notice in the #7 shot that, because you're pointing downward, the building in the background is leaning with the top away from the center. In all the shots with inward leaning you're pointing upward.
  18. That may very well be the case Gene. Thanks for pointing that out...
  19. Daniel, I did some test shots today without the CP and vignetting was negligible.
  20. Gregg, the PhotoZone reveiw pointed out that field curvature is a real problem with this lens. They only gave it a four star optical rating (versus 4.5 or 5) for this reason and highlighted their reservation. So you and Rich are not alone.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.