(Another) lens dilemma topic « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

(Another) lens dilemma topic

(64 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

ng6

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 7
offline

Hi,

So I have been given the unique opportunity to buy a new lens which I haven't done for a long, long time. To give you a little background, I've been a hobbyist photographer for the past 10 years (my first camera being a Nikon FM2 w/ a 50mm f/1.4 lens). And the last time I bought any equipment was when the D300 first came out, and along with that body I purchased a 85mm f/1.4 (I love this lens by the way.)

I've always been a "prime baby", I love 'em. I plan on becoming a documentary portrait/street photohournalist once I graduate. I have a variety of primes: 35/2, 50/1.4 (not the new one), and 85/1.4. I also had (but sold) a 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 135/2, and... Wait that's it :) -- So zoom's have never been my thing although I do have one (a 24-85/2.8-4 that sits in the bag) and have owned a couple back in the day. I started going to school for photography about a year and a half ago and I've gotten a chances to work in a studio setting, and bringing lighting equipment on location and love it.

So my dilemma is what should be my next lens? I have say, $2400 to spend and would like something nice. I thought about this for a while and I was originally set on getting the 70-200mm VRII that just came out but reading on this forum and various others, there seem to be a lot of mixed reviews on it.

The other option is to get a nice prime fisheye, the 16/2.8, and a telephoto prime, maybe repurchasing a 135/2 (the DC lens). I sold it the first time so I could buy the D300.

The OTHER other option is to get a D700... But this is really not that great of an option imho, just because I love my D300.

Oh, I guess if you would like to see some of my very recent work, http://www.flickr.com/photos/renaissancewind/sets/72157622944514922/ (a lot of the work is hidden, you'll have to add me on there to see it all.)

Thanks! :)

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ng6 said:
The OTHER other option is to get a D700... But this is really not that great of an option imho, just because I love my D300.

Welcome to the forum ng6! :^)

I don't see why not! If you love your D300, I'll bet you'll love the D700 even more! It looks like you do a lot of portraits, so the D700 would be great for that.

As for lenses:

The only "con" about the new 70-200 VRII is the "FoZoom", which I don't really think is such a big deal. I think you'd like that, since you seem to do portraiture. Same goes for the 135mm ƒ/2.

As for fisheye, well, I don't know. To begin with, the 16mm is for FX, if you want full 180° FOV you need the 10.5mm that's made specially for DX. Depends on how much you think you'll use it I guess.

Posted 3 years ago #
ng6

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 7
offline

alphanikonrex said:
Welcome to the forum ng6! :^)

I don't see why not! If you love your D300, I'll bet you'll love the D700 even more! It looks like you do a lot of portraits, so the D700 would be great for that.

As for lenses:

The only "con" about the new 70-200 VRII is the "FoZoom", which I don't really think is such a big deal. I think you'd like that, since you seem to do portraiture. Same goes for the 135mm ƒ/2.

As for fisheye, well, I don't know. To begin with, the 16mm is for FX, if you want full 180° FOV you need the 10.5mm that's made specially for DX. Depends on how much you think you'll use it I guess.

Thanks :)

The only thing I don't know about the d700 is that it would reproduce the same FOV as 35mm, which is cool but I haven't used film in such a long time, and I wouldn't be getting as close as I thought I was getting. Besides, isn't that really the only big difference between the d300 and the d700? Also, isn't a newer version coming out soon?

As for the lenses, yeah fisheye was a little bit of a stretch, although I would like one, I can only really see myself using it maybe for a dozen or so things. Maybe a nice wide lens like a 14/2.8 would work?

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ng6 said:
The only thing I don't know about the d700 is that it would reproduce the same FOV as 35mm, which is cool but I haven't used film in such a long time, and I wouldn't be getting as close as I thought I was getting. Besides, isn't that really the only big difference between the d300 and the d700?

The FX sensor is the big difference. That means better low-light sensitivity, a wider FOV, and a shallower DOF per mm (to get the same shallow DOF from a 135 ƒ/2 on DX you have to back up more 'cause you're actually using a 200mm lens).

And in addition to that, you've got a bigger, brighter viewfinder, slightly better ergonomics, but you lose the 100% viewfinder coverage and 1fps of speed.

I wouldn't get the 14mm unless you need to use filters. I'm pretty sure that the 14-24mm is superior in all other ways, and it doesn't cost much more. I know you're a prime guy, but it also gives coverage to 24mm which you seem to be missing from your kit.

And unfortunately you lose the ultra-wide part on DX :^(

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

ng6 said:
Thanks :)

The only thing I don't know about the d700 is that it would reproduce the same FOV as 35mm, which is cool but I haven't used film in such a long time, and I wouldn't be getting as close as I thought I was getting. Besides, isn't that really the only big difference between the d300 and the d700? Also, isn't a newer version coming out soon?

As for the lenses, yeah fisheye was a little bit of a stretch, although I would like one, I can only really see myself using it maybe for a dozen or so things. Maybe a nice wide lens like a 14/2.8 would work?

Welcome to the forum. Nice photos, ng6.

alpha's right about the 14 2.8. If you're considering that, I'd save a bit more and get the 14-24.

I wouldn't get the D700. I think the D300 is great for studio and street photography. At ISO 200, I think the D300 is amazing, and with studio lighting you can always add more light to expose at ISO 200. One thing you'd be losing if you went to the D700 is an autofocus system that covers the whole frame (it has the same AF module as the D300, so it still only covers DX). That might be an issue with street, anyway. Studio stuff not so much. I think the next iteration of pro FF bodies (D4 and D800) will have an autofocus sensor with full frame coverage, and that may be worth the wait.

I think the new 70-200 2.8 would be a great choice. That's got my vote, and then save up for a full frame camera if you still think you need it.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

jonnyapple said:
I think the new 70-200 2.8 would be a great choice. That's got my vote, and then save up for a full frame camera if you still think you need it.

Me too :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
ng6

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 7
offline

jonnyapple said:
the D700 is an autofocus system that covers the whole frame (it has the same AF module as the D300, so it still only covers DX).

I think the new 70-200 2.8 would be a great choice. That's got my vote, and then save up for a full frame camera if you still think you need it.

What do you mean by the AF module only covers DX?

As for the 70-200, it seems a bunch of people think it's a good choice for me. But the one thing I fear is that I don't really want to be known as the photographer that goes across the field to take the shot, I like being up close and personal with my subjects. Maybe it is the way to go?

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ng6 said:
What do you mean by the AF module only covers DX?

D300 Viewfinder:

D700 Viewfinder:

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ng6 said:
As for the 70-200, it seems a bunch of people think it's a good choice for me. But the one thing I fear is that I don't really want to be known as the photographer that goes across the field to take the shot, I like being up close and personal with my subjects. Maybe it is the way to go?

LOL, do you want to be like Platon? ;^) In that case I would go with the 14-24mm ƒ/2.8.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

You dont need anything... :-) save the money to spend on the D4x in a couple of years! :-)

PS Great work BTW.

Only thing I can suggest is to try different lighting setups.. the "Cats Eye" of your subjects gets a bit distracting after a while :-)

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Thanks, alpha. I actually did a half-hearted search for those images when I posted that. For all my talk of my manual reading habits, you'd think I would have thought of the manuals! Does that make sense now, ng6? The AF system only covers the center of the frame in the D700 (basically the DX crop), while it almost fills the D300 frame.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

LOL well I had an advantage... :^D

All my manuals are conveniently placed on the dock :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

LOL !!

Posted 3 years ago #
ng6

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 7
offline

alphanikonrex said:
D300 Viewfinder:

D700 Viewfinder:

Whoa, why is it like that? Is that the same for the D3 series? As for Platon, I'm pretty sure he didn't use a DSLR to get those photos... At least I think he didn't. And wouldn't the 14-24/28 give ridiculous, exaggerated features for close up portraits?

I think I am ultimately going to get the 70-200/2.8 ... Its just a lot of money I guess haha.

As for the D700, I think I will wait to get it, like I said, it wasn't that big on the priorities.

heartyfisher said:
You dont need anything... :-) save the money to spend on the D4x in a couple of years! :-)

PS Great work BTW.

Only thing I can suggest is to try different lighting setups.. the "Cats Eye" of your subjects gets a bit distracting after a while :-)

Haha, the cat's eye effect is something I didn't originally want to work with, but the ringflash I used required a different tripod mount I didn't have time to find/pick up so I had to improvise, besides the whole idea of the people having cats eyes (or rings) is to separate them from normal humans, they have a super power afterall. :)

And as for not getting another lens and saving, I'm a very big believer that working lighter is better, smarter then harder, and that the camera and all its bits and pieces are just tools, and just like regular tools you need different ones for whatever situation you might find yourself in!

Posted 3 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I loved the D300 as well but I finally gave in on Christmas and traded it in for the D700. For portraits, I don't think you would see a lot of difference. There just seems to be a large improvement with noise and as everyone says the low light performance really is noticeable right away even after taking your first few shots. Its not just talk images really are great well over ISO 3200. So far I am very pleased..I put off the decision for over a year though because I loved the performance of the D300 I had also.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ng6 said:
Whoa, why is it like that? Is that the same for the D3 series?

Yeah, unfortunately it's the same for the D3 series. It's because they use the same AF sensor, except that FX covers a larger area, thus you get smaller coverage. However, when you switch the D700 to DX-crop mode you get the same AF-point coverage as the D300.

ng6 said:
As for Platon, I'm pretty sure he didn't use a DSLR to get those photos... At least I think he didn't. And wouldn't the 14-24/28 give ridiculous, exaggerated features for close up portraits?

I think he used MF actually, but my point was that he uses a wideangle lens to get that look, so if you used a 14mm lens for portraiture you'd be like him :^)

ng6 said:
I think I am ultimately going to get the 70-200/2.8 ... Its just a lot of money I guess haha.

Sounds good to me! :^D

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I stared for a while at those pictures alpha posted and couldn't convince myself there was a 1.5x difference in size of the AF coverage. I did a little searching and it looks like the AF module actually isn't the same: Multi-CAM 3500DX in the D300 and Multi-CAM 3500FX in the D700, D3, etc.
Does anyone know the actual difference between these? Apparently, the FX is slightly bigger based on those viewfinder pictures. Is there a reason they can't scale it all the way to the edges of the frame? I wish I understood phase-detected AF better. Does not enough light from one side of the lens get to the sensor at the edges of the frame?

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Huh? That's strange—I did know that there were two different modules, an FX and DX version, but I though they were basically the same thing. While you research, let me experiment...

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

You're right jonny!

Posted 3 years ago #
ng6

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 7
offline

alphanikonrex said:
You're right jonny!

So it is a bit bigger?

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Yeah, I think the FX module is a touch bigger. Better, but not perfect.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I hope that they will change the AF module on future FX cameras, to either cover the same area as on the D300(s) or make more AF points

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Hmmm, which would you rather have, larger AF points or more AF points?

More AF points means they're much more precise, yet if it takes too long to select the AF point you want you miss the shot. Ah well, I'll just see what Nikon does and learn to deal with it...

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Yes but the processor is faster, and there could be a selection of how many points are used etc. More points could also be used to more effectively meter for face recognition and other challenging metering situations

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

And they could probably put in the Wide-Area AF mode of the 11 AF point cameras. It could combine 4 AF points to make one, making our 204 AF points into 51 ;^)

Posted 3 years ago #