I can't imagine anyone who goes to the trouble of buying a D700 etc. would want to then buy an f5.6 zoom. What would be the point?
Kent in SD
I use a teeny tiny plastic 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D "G" on my D700 with amazing results. It saves me a ton of weight for those times when I don't wanna haul the rest of my kit, and it only cost me $50. It's more than adequate for just about everything that's not for a paying client. That's the point.
If it is a DX kit lens and it is of high enough quality (like the 18-70AFS was) I would be interested just to save some size/weight over my excellent 16-85AFS. 18mm on the kit lenses was never wide enough for me as a carry-around. There was a rumor of a Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR DX over at NikonRumors that this would complement quite well. This lens may be optimized for video with silent AF, etc. and could be a good match to the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless APS-C (?) camera.
If it is an FX lens - I certainly would love to have it on a D700 - why not? A (hopefully) small lightweight very wide to normal would be very welcome to pair with the D700 (which I hope to get sometime soon). These expensive monster wide angle zooms are a real impediment to "upgrading" to FX.
So, either way, DX or FX, I think this could be a winner if the IQ and build are sufficient and it doesn't cost an arm + leg (probably just a leg would be my bet).
Two23 wrote:
I can't imagine anyone who goes to the trouble of buying a D700 etc. would want to then buy an f5.6 zoom. What would be the point?
Kent in SD
daytime shooting be a good purpose. If wanting any attempt at slowing things down like say water in backgrounds or not having the camera give H1 iso setting in A mode you back of fthe lens anyway (or put on filters). 5.6 gets a longer shutter wide open, backed off to 8 and be even better. All non-filtered.
If price and weight is right could be a fun lens to carry around when your shots are just more for fun, I think anyway.
jasoncallen wrote:
I use a teeny tiny plastic 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D "G" on my D700 with amazing results. It saves me a ton of weight for those times when I don't wanna haul the rest of my kit, and it only cost me $50. It's more than adequate for just about everything that's not for a paying client. That's the point.
Why wouldn't you just use a D90 or something if you're after small & light? I routinely switch to my D80 + 18-55mm VR when I want something small. The point of spending the money on a D700 and then putting a rinky dink lens on it is still eluding me. Odds are the new lens is another DX. Nikon is surely (hopefully) working on somethingl like 24-105mm VR f4 as a lighter FX lens option. They need those f4 lenses badly!
Maybe they like the D700 with rink dink lenses for the better VF and the ability to shoot at ISO 6400 which makes their lenses f/5.6 much more useful. Personally I'd love a D700 and Ultron 40mm f/2 pancake, that's as rinky as it gets
Aug 04, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jasoncallen wrote:
I use a teeny tiny plastic 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D "G" on my D700 with amazing results. It saves me a ton of weight for those times when I don't wanna haul the rest of my kit, and it only cost me $50. It's more than adequate for just about everything that's not for a paying client. That's the point.
You could do the same with a decent point and shoot.
Aug 08, 2010 at 05:16 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
