I'm in the middle of changing gear, late midlife crisis .... I would like to change to Nikon D700 and there seems to be a multitude of great Nikon lenses to be used. I have gone through and through the lenses on many different websites that give good reviews on the lenses.
I shoot mainly landscape and nature photography mostly small macro nature stuff ... if you get my drift. I use a tripod most of the times and I'm not into the high ISO using but would be a plus.
I've been doing some thinking on going by route of the fixed lenses and have come up with these as what I think would be good enough for my kind of photography.
Now I'm not set on this and would like to hear what others think about this ... I have other ideas also.
Mostly B/H prices
Zeiss 25/2 $ 826.00
Zeiss 35/2 $ 826.00
Nikon 50 $125.00
Nikon 80-200 $ 650.00
$2402.00
This would be a last time purchase, mostly want the lenses that would be good enough for many years to come, seems like Nikon has tested the times with all of there lenses. Now I'm going to sit back and see what you folks all think of my thinking, and would love your help.
Lynn
Check out this website if you haven't already. Excellent reviews and Bjorn is also a landscape and nature photographer!
Some of those prices look sorta high (if you're buying used). If you're wanting to get a 35mm f/2 AF-D, those can be had for under $300 (seen a couple go as low as $225). The 50mm you can definitely get for under $100. I got an 85mm f/1.8D for $330 in like new condition here on the buy/sell forum. I got my 105mm f/4 AIS Micro for $200 with a Canon 250D close up lens (in ex condition).
Your Nikon kit looks pretty nice. For the kit with the Zeiss lenses, I know the 35mm is a killer lens. If you're only doing landscapes and not shooting action, I would go for a push/pull 80-200mm to save a little money. You could even go for the manual focus version. That could free up some money in your second kit to get a macro lens.
If I was shooting primes doing landscape and macro, I'd try to get as many Zeiss lenses as I could. However, if I thought I was ever going to need AF, then I'd go Nikon all the way. I think the Nikon glass is going to last as long as the Zeiss, and from what I've seen, at landscape F stops, it's a pretty close race image quality wise.
'Course, I shoot zooms, so take the advice for what it's worth
if you want wide primes for FX landscape work, don't bother with the Nikkors if you can afford Zeiss. Nikon's wider zooms are excellent though and, of course, AF and all kinds of other useful stuff. your Zeiss prices look out of date though.
Thanks for your comments, and burnt_toast I have read that one also and good to re-read it. I'm looking for more comments on your dealings with the Nikkors that I have posted but do love the idea of having Zeiss lenses it's a dream that's feasible for me to do at this time, but later on not so.
The fact of AF in the zooms is nice, I have used manual focus lenses before being harder to focus is a drag but the thing is that I'm out in the forest, Desert, Mountains taking photo's I'm in no hurry so then MF is just another part of the learning curve of photography for me.
Many thanks I'm sitting back now to see if more shall be revealed ....
Lynn
Lynn Ross wrote:
I'm in the middle of changing gear, late midlife crisis .... I would like to change to Nikon D700 and there seems to be a multitude of great Nikon lenses to be used. I have gone through and through the lenses on many different websites that give good reviews on the lenses.
I shoot mainly landscape and nature photography mostly small macro nature stuff ... if you get my drift. I use a tripod most of the times and I'm not into the high ISO using but would be a plus.
I've been doing some thinking on going by route of the fixed lenses and have come up with these as what I think would be good enough for my kind of photography.
Now I'm not set on this and would like to hear what others think about this ... I have other ideas also.
Mostly B/H prices
Zeiss 25/2 $ 826.00
Zeiss 35/2 $ 826.00
Nikon 50 $125.00
Nikon 80-200 $ 650.00
$2402.00
This would be a last time purchase, mostly want the lenses that would be good enough for many years to come, seems like Nikon has tested the times with all of there lenses. Now I'm going to sit back and see what you folks all think of my thinking, and would love your help.
Lynn...Show more →
Hi Lynn,
I just swapped from Canon to the Nikon D700. I can't really comment on the kind of photography you use and you do have quite a few lens choices. However, one lens in your list had caught my eye - the Nikon 80 - 200mm. May I ask, which one - the choices that I researched were
1. 80 - 200mm AF f2.8D "push pull" - used around $600
2. 80 - 200mm AF f2.8D ED "2 ring" - used around $800
3. 80 - 200mm AF f2.8D AFS ED - used around $1000 (but prices vary all over the place).
I posted a thread in dpreview and found out that there are a few differences between 2 & 3, but not that much between 1 & 2. My original post was the 80 - 200mm AF ED "2 ring" vs. the 70 - 200mm VR I ($1500). I was informed several times that the 80 - 200mm AFS was the better lens as apposed to the 80 - 200mm ED "2 ring".
I settled on the 80 - 200mm AFS because a couple of folks convinced me of its sharpness on the D700.
I just thought I'd let you know about the 80 - 200mm lens choices.
By the way, I agree with the above post, the 24 - 70mm f2.8 is an amazing lens. The pictures look like they were take with a prime lens. However, it is heavy.
For image quality, the Nikons 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 would give you a noticeable difference. The Nikons you listed are ancient--~30 yr. old design. Just as cameras have changed since 1984, so have lenses. I have owned the 20mm f2.8, found it soft. Also owned 85mm f1.8 and found it to be the very worst lens I have ever used when it comes to flare & ghosting. (Might be good for studio portraits--didn't use it for that.) I tried the single focal lens route on my D300 and was very disappointed. Nikon's best state of art zooms are superior. I am an outdoor photographer. Lately been hiking through deep snow with snowshoes. I would bet weight of two zooms is the same as all that stuff you listed, plus no changing lenses in the dust and blowing snow.
Hi Lynn. I think if you are leaning towards using primes than you would likely be happy by taking that route. Whatever you do, do not listen to the baloney that zooms are better than primes. I suggest you start by testing out some primes and you will soon see that they equal some of these so called "state of the art" zooms with respect to overall image quality. People sometimes like to think that new technology is always better but that is not always the case. Changing lenses should not be a concern - especially with self cleaning sensors. And yes, 3-4 primes will weigh less than say the massive and heavy (but very good) 24-70mm. I am also finding out that I have just as many keepers (more in low light) using manual focus compared to auto focus. You may also find (as I did) that primes encourage one to be more creative.... All the best and let us know how you make out.
I did the tests. Modern state of art Nikon pro zooms beat the old Nikon single focal lenses every time. Yes, every time. New lens coatings on all the glass surfaces means less ghosting from digital sensors. It also means better color, better contrast, and less flare. New CAD design and aspherical elements means less CA and less distortion. New ED elements means more sharpness, less CA. AFS means faster focus, and genrally it's more accurate. Just as cameras have changed over the past 30 years, so have lenses. Plus, I was often missing fast breaking shots when I tried the so-called "prime" dinosaurs. There are the Zeiss ZF single focal lenses which I haven't had much experience with. I can't justify manual focus lenses though for what I shoot, and I can't justify paying their cost when Nikon's state of art pro f2.8 lenses with nano coatings are just a few hundred dollars more (and they have nearly instant AFS focus.)
That's pretty funny.... I did testing as well and there is little difference in the performance between zooms and primes - trust me. Using Nikkor primes - perhaps in some cases the Nikkor pro zooms would be better but not that often. With alternative primes (which I also own and enjoy), they are on par or in certain cases better than Nikkor zooms. I ackowledge that certain Nikkor primes are dud's but there are a few which really shine. If you truly feel that these awesome, yummy nano-coated zooms perform better, please post up some crops. Just because it's older technology doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't perform as well as new technology. Honestly, I could be wrong but I certainly did not see such poor performance as you mention....
every manual focus Nikkor i tried have been duds for me. i got them for very specific needs and they didn't do the jobs. except for the 45/2.8P, i have ended up selling them after a few months because of poor performance. in some cases, i have tried several instances of each. with the exception of the Nikkor 50/1.8 (i haven't shot with any of the 50/1.4s), i have been very disappointed in Nikon's current AF primes wider than 50mm. they all uniformly show annoying to unusable amounts of CA at most apertures and many show excessive corner softness. at the longer end, from 85 and up, i have not run into any such problems. this weird dichotomy in Nikkor lens performance annoys me to no end. i haven't yet tried the Nikkor macros or PC-E lenses yet but the 24 is on my list, after i test it. for most of my wide prime shooting, i use my Zeiss lens and the Nikkor 17-35 or 28-70 for most other times. i've found that the zooms perform better than all of the older wide Nikkor primes i have tried in terms of sharpness and CA and no worse in flare resistance.
Herb...
Gary Clennan wrote:
I ackowledge that certain Nikkor primes are dud's but there are a few which really shine. If you truly feel that these awesome, yummy nano-coated zooms perform better, please post up some crops. Just because it's older technology doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't perform as well as new technology. Honestly, I could be wrong but I certainly did not see such poor performance as you mention....
Now, now you too Ha, thanks for your comments both of you I like the thinking both of you talk about and I coming from the Canon camp I've used many prime from there line-up not to many manual focus ones but did notice that the prime did out perform the zooms but not by much some of the times, I used a 4x5 for the last two years and don't mind muddleing around fixed lenses, it's more contemplative, most of the times I'm shooting things that don't move or don't move too much. I'm getting old and much slower and just like the being out-of-doors part of photography. I see that having a zoom would give me more chances also.
Keep on giving me your great thoughts.
Lynn
Lynn - I suggest you do some of your own testing if you have that option. You could visit a camera store and spend a few hours trying different lenses and coming to your own conclusion. Keep in mind that there are many pixel peepers who really, really, examine results at a microscopic level to determine performance. If you don't plan on making large prints, these primes will likely serve you just fine. If you plan on making and/or selling large prints (such as Herb does), primes may not be the best option for you. However, there are certain primes (85mmf/1.4, 180mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2, etc) which IMO outperform any equivalent zoom. If you plan to do a lot of low light shooting, the fastest zooms which Nikon carries are f/2.8 which may not be sufficient. You can gain a real advantage in low light by using a lens with a maximum aperture of say f/1.4 or f/1.2. It really all depends on what YOUR personal needs are. People tend to over analyze matters when in reality, any lens will do if you mainly do web posting and 4X6 prints.
.... I would like to change to Nikon D700 and there seems to be a multitude of great Nikon lenses to be used. I have gone through and through the lenses on many different websites that give good reviews on the lenses.
