Which lens??

[Sueann]

I'm just starting my research and hoping you will all give me some good advice :D

I shoot with a D700 and want to add to my collection a wide angle lens and also a zoom lens that would come in handy for my husbands football games.

Do you have any suggestions????

Thanks all in advance :th3:

[I @ M]

Do you have any suggestions????




Bucket loads of em. :D

First off, please let us know how many of your dollars we are allowed to spend.

[Wayne]

First off, please let us know how many of your dollars we are allowed to spend.

^^ will make all the difference.

I'll start with the wide angle though it's a pretty simple one and prices are not that different..

Both about $1000 +/- (The 17-35 will be used for that price but mint)
AF-S 17-35/2.8D - My choice
AF-S 16-35/4VR - Not as good as above optically

Zoom for sports, there really are only 2 zooms worth considering;

1. AF-S 70-200/2.8VR I/II - VRI about $1500 used mint the VRII $2000-$2400 new and used. Not a great deal of difference between them, the VRII has Nano coat, VRII system giving a claimed extra stop of hand hold ability but the magnification at close focus distances on the VRII is lower than the VRI, also vignetting is reduced but not eliminated on the VRII, although the VRI was not that bad at f/2.8 and all but gone by f/4. For field sports, both of these esp on a FX body (D700 you have) will be too short and would be best used with teleconverters, just avoid the TC20EII, the 1.4, 1.7 and new TC20EIII are all fantastic with these 2 zooms.

2. AF-S 200-400/4 VRI/II - VRI about $4000-4600 mint used and the new VRII $6300+ new. The new version has VRII so an extra stop as above with the 70-200 of hand hold ability and it is sharper at the long end than the VRI. The VRI is no slouch though and the zoom range on both of these is very handy for covering both indoor and outdoor sports. Either can be used with a teleconverter to get more reach, but as the lens is already an f/4 wide open, the 1.4x TC is about all that is going to be really useful for sports and AF will be slower than without the TC. You can use the 1.7xTC but in anything but good sunlight, AF will not work very quickly and sometimes not at all. This is a large beast, and unless you have good arms, hand holding it for more than a few shots will probably prove difficult, so a monopod/gimbal will probably be required.

You can opt for 3rd party Sigma's, Tokina's, Tamron's etc which can be had much cheaper, however they are not in the same class as the Nikkor lenses.

When it comes to glass, you can rely on the theory of getting what you pay for.

[ving]

70-200 f2.8 for the zoom and maybe a 10-20 siggy for wide... how wide do you want to go?

[Lance B]

^^ will make all the difference.

I'll start with the wide angle though it's a pretty simple one and prices are not that different..

Both about $1000 +/- (The 17-35 will be used for that price but mint)
AF-S 17-35/2.8D - My choice
AF-S 16-35/4VR - Not as good as above optically

Very debateable!

Having VR on the 16-35 can be of quite a benefit for low light photography. When I was in Europe shooting inside those dimly lit interiors of churches, cathedrals and castles, VR came into it's own allowing 1/5sec, ISO3200 and f13 (for DOF advantages).

Tom Hogan wrote about the 16-35 vs 17-35 from this: http://www.bythom.com/faqnew.htm

"Should I get the 16-35mm, 17-35mm, or the 14-24mm?
We can pretty much eliminate the 17-35mm these days. As good as it was during its day, both the other lenses surpass it, especially in terms of corner sharpness. The big questions then become: do you need to use filters (get the 16-35mm), do you worry about linear distortion (get the 14-24mm), do you know how to frame extremely wide angle (get the 14-24mm), do you need faster apertures (get the 14-24mm), and do you need the most versatile focal range (get the 16-35mm). Resolve those questions and you have your answer."

A good discussion and tets on both on the "Fotografie" forum which are reviews by actual users who have had/have both:

http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=643

and here:

http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=644

From DP Reviews conclusion:

"Conclusion - Pros
■Very high image quality on both DX and FX formats
■Excellent build quality with dust and moisture sealing
■Highly effective optical image stabilization
■Fast, silent autofocus with manual override
Conclusion - Cons
■Huge barrel distortion at 16mm on FX cameras
■Relatively big and heavy for its class (larger than many F2.8 wideangle zooms)
■Slightly inelegant flare handling"

Tests done by Photozone on a D200 (not FX):

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/524-nikkorafs1635vrdx

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/230-nikkor-af-s-17-35mm-f28-d-if-ed-review--lab-test-report

Photozone has only done the 16-35 f4 on FX, not the 17-35 f2.8:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff


Zoom for sports, there really are only 2 zooms worth considering;

1. AF-S 70-200/2.8VR I/II - VRI about $1500 used mint the VRII $2000-$2400 new and used. Not a great deal of difference between them, the VRII has Nano coat, VRII system giving a claimed extra stop of hand hold ability but the magnification at close focus distances on the VRII is lower than the VRI, also vignetting is reduced but not eliminated on the VRII, although the VRI was not that bad at f/2.8 and all but gone by f/4. For field sports, both of these esp on a FX body (D700 you have) will be too short and would be best used with teleconverters, just avoid the TC20EII, the 1.4, 1.7 and new TC20EIII are all fantastic with these 2 zooms.

2. AF-S 200-400/4 VRI/II - VRI about $4000-4600 mint used and the new VRII $6300+ new. The new version has VRII so an extra stop as above with the 70-200 of hand hold ability and it is sharper at the long end than the VRI. The VRI is no slouch though and the zoom range on both of these is very handy for covering both indoor and outdoor sports. Either can be used with a teleconverter to get more reach, but as the lens is already an f/4 wide open, the 1.4x TC is about all that is going to be really useful for sports and AF will be slower than without the TC. You can use the 1.7xTC but in anything but good sunlight, AF will not work very quickly and sometimes not at all. This is a large beast, and unless you have good arms, hand holding it for more than a few shots will probably prove difficult, so a monopod/gimbal will probably be required.

You can opt for 3rd party Sigma's, Tokina's, Tamron's etc which can be had much cheaper, however they are not in the same class as the Nikkor lenses.

When it comes to glass, you can rely on the theory of getting what you pay for.

Good advice. On the 70-200 f2.8 VRII, you can also add using any of the TC's that Nikon offer, 1.4x TCII, 1.7x TCII and the new 2x TCIII (do not get the 2x TCII as it is quite inferior) I use the TC's on my 70-200 f2.8 VRII and the results are quite amazing. This could be a good cheaper option short term for your longer zoom requirements, but using the TC's cuts down on light but makes the zoom focal range longer by the TC amount, so:

70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x TCII = 98-280 f4
70-200 f2.8 + 1.7x TCII = 105-340 f5
70-200 f2.8 + 2x TCIII = 140-400 f5.6

A few samples with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCIII:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126211144/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/132886244/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/132886383/original.jpg

Crop of above:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/132886384/original.jpg

I also use the TC's on my 300mm f2.8 VRII with superb results.

[Lance B]

70-200 f2.8 for the zoom and maybe a 10-20 siggy for wide... how wide do you want to go?

I think the wide angle is for the D700 which is FX, and the Sigma 10-20 is for DX?

[Sueann]

My price range would be anywhere from $1-2000. But I'm open to suggestions if that is not possible :)

[Sueann]

10 would be the absolute widest I would go, maybe 14 or 16?

[Sueann]

Wow, fantastic shots, I think you guys have almost convinced me on the 70-200/2.8 with a teleconverter. Great option, I'm so glad I asked!!

[Lance B]

If $1,000-$2,000 for both a wide angle zoom and a tele zoom, then the Nikon70-300 VR would be very good as it can be had for about $1,000, bu there are also Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and Sigma 50-500 for similar money. There is the Tokina 12-24 f2.8 which is a very good wide angle lens for FX for about $1100. I could link to some good on line Australian retailers that have a list of lenses for you, but I am unsure of the posting policy of Ausphotography about direct links.

[Lance B]

Wow, fantastic shots, I think you guys have almost convinced me on the 70-200/2.8 with a teleconverter. Great option, I'm so glad I asked!!

Thank you, Sueann. Glad that the pics were of some help.

The beauty of the TC's is that they are compact and light and much cheaper option than buying a super tele. I took the TC's with me, for using with my 70-200 f2.8, on my Europoean trip rather than take a bulky 200-400 f4 (not that I have this lens but was considering it at the time) or my 300 f2.8 (which I ended up getting in preference to the 200-400 f4) for added reach.

[Sueann]

$1-2000 per lens, not for both :D I should have been a bit clearer :rolleyes:

[I @ M]

Now we are getting somewhere. :D

The 70-200 with a tc or 2 is right in the budget range second hand so that leaves the wide angle.

What will be your main subject with the wide angle?
That will largely determine what will work best for you. At present the widest you will buy for an FX Nikon body is the Sigma 12-24 F/4.5 - F/5.6, you can then look at things like the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8, the Nikon 14mm F/2.8 prime or the previously mentioned Nikon zooms.

[Sueann]

You're welcome to send me an email with the list of retailers

[I @ M]

I could link to some good on line Australian retailers that have a list of lenses for you, but I am unsure of the posting policy of Ausphotography about direct links.

Link away Lance but I reckon in all fairness to the site advertisers who help keep the place going and provide very good service it would be good to include links to their product lists as well.
It might also be be good to indicate whether any business that you link to is an authorised dealer for that particular product, based in Australia, located overseas or whether they are grey importers

[Sueann]

I'm looking at the wide angle for landscape photography

[I @ M]

Landscapes, tripods and filters go hand in hand.

All of the lenses listed will work well on a tripod, some better than others due to differing reasons.

The 16-35 and 17-35 Nikkor lenses are the only ones that will accept a screw in filter or holder straight from the factory.

The 14-24 Nikkor can be "optioned" with a Lee filter holder especially designed to suit that lens ( $$$ and high demand with low stock levels )

We have a Tokina 16-28 that is a very good lens at a lowish price and I am in the process of making up a filter holder for it along the lines of the Lee unit that suits the Nikkor.

The 16-35 Nikkor has about the worst or second worst level of distortion across horizons but it has VR if you forgo the tripod and hand hold very often.

The 17-35 Nikkor is likely to be discontinued soon, has a bad reputation for premature focus motor death and is still fetching high prices secondhand.

[Lance B]

Link away Lance but I reckon in all fairness to the site advertisers who help keep the place going and provide very good service it would be good to include links to their product lists as well.
It might also be be good to indicate whether any business that you link to is an authorised dealer for that particular product, based in Australia, located overseas or whether they are grey importers

I have sent a personal message to Sueann on a couple I have used, including Digitalrev from here (which I have used), which I have found to be good and have good prices. I am only linking to these places as they generally have a page dedicated to "wide zooms" and also "tele zooms" etc which makes it easier to compare brands. I have absolutely no personal interest in any of them as I actually purchase nearly all my gear from a local Sydney store as I like personal service and the back up they provide.

[Lance B]

Landscapes, tripods and filters go hand in hand.

All of the lenses listed will work well on a tripod, some better than others due to differing reasons.

The 16-35 and 17-35 Nikkor lenses are the only ones that will accept a screw in filter or holder straight from the factory.

The 14-24 Nikkor can be "optioned" with a Lee filter holder especially designed to suit that lens ( $$$ and high demand with low stock levels )

We have a Tokina 16-28 that is a very good lens at a lowish price and I am in the process of making up a filter holder for it along the lines of the Lee unit that suits the Nikkor.

The 16-35 Nikkor has about the worst or second worst level of distortion across horizons but it has VR if you forgo the tripod and hand hold very often.

The 17-35 Nikkor is likely to be discontinued soon, has a bad reputation for premature focus motor death and is still fetching high prices secondhand.

A very good summary, but the 16-35's distortion is easily fixable in post process software and I have not really ever found it to be a limitation. However, looking at the Photozone's test of both the 17-35 and the 16-35 on an APS C sensored camera as linked to above, the 17-35 actually has more distortion, 2.31% as compared to the 16-35's 1.11%??!! Looking at the full frame results, the 16-35 blows out to 4.34%, but there is no comparable FF test for the 17-35 f2.8.

I have both the 16-35 f4 VR and the 14-24 f2.8. I like the usefulness of the 16-35 f4 best out of these two, but the 14-24 has the best IQ and is noted as one of the best super wide angle zooms available by any manufacturer. However, for me it is a specialist lens and I only use it in some situations, whereas the 16-35 is a more general purpose lens. Both can give superb results.

If you use filters like ND graduated and polarisers, like I like to do, then the 16-35 is a beauty.

[I @ M]

A very good summary, but the 16-35's distortion is easily fixable in post process software and I have not really ever found it to be a limitation. However, looking at the Photozone's test of both the 17-35 and the 16-35 on an APS C sensored camera as linked to above, the 17-35 actually has more distortion, 2.31% as compared to the 16-35's 1.11%??!! Looking at the full frame results, the 16-35 blows out to 4.34%, but there is no comparable FF test for the 17-35 f2.8.
.

Not losing too many pixels in processing due to low (2.44%) distortion, the overall good IQ especially centre sharpness wide open at F/2.8 and the lower price was my reasoning behind the Tokina 16-28. It can be used quite well for a good variety of things as well.

[Sueann]

. However, for me it is a specialist lens and I only use it in some situations,

In what situations would you use the 14-24?

[I @ M]

The 14-24 ( along with other wide to ultra wide lenses ) are very versatile.
Use them where you want a truly massive field of view from a single image such as landscapes, capturing large numbers of people in a smallish room, building interiors and exteriors or where you want to use the naturally occurring distortion to put an artistic slant on ordinary subjects.

In FX terms, 12 or 14 mm is really in the ultrawide territory and the 24 mm end is at the wider end of the wide scale so it really depends on how much field of view you want / need.

[Lance B]

The 14-24 ( along with other wide to ultra wide lenses ) are very versatile.
Use them where you want a truly massive field of view from a single image such as landscapes, capturing large numbers of people in a smallish room, building interiors and exteriors or where you want to use the naturally occurring distortion to put an artistic slant on ordinary subjects.

In FX terms, 12 or 14 mm is really in the ultrawide territory and the 24 mm end is at the wider end of the wide scale so it really depends on how much field of view you want / need.

Another good write up. The other thing with these ultra wide angles is to give a sense of making the nearby subject matter appear big and dominating whilst the background fades into the distance and/or using leading lines to draw you into the photo. Not that these are 14mm, but 16mm, as I have only just purchased the 14-24 and haven't many good examples yet but still trying!

This is sort of the thing I mean, where the pool was the focus of attention and the building in the background is there just to show in what context the pool is there.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126315296/original.jpg

In this photo, I purposely included the bridge gardens as a frame and and the hook as a leading pointer to the Thun River in Thun, Switzerland. Whether it actually works for you is another thing! But I like it. :)

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126315316/original.jpg

In this shot, I wanted the little fountains to have more impact than they ordinarily would have if I'd used a normal lens, so I used 16mm and got a little closer and still kept Sommerset House, off The Strand in London, big in the phot for context.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126937693/original.jpg

Here is a shot taken where VR played an important part, IS3200, 1/10sec, f13. I used f13 to get as much DOF as possible of the floor to lead you into the photo. Using f13, this required ISO3200 and 1/10sec.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126488176/original.jpg

Here is a crop of the corner to show that it has good corner sharpness due.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126488177/original.jpg