Full Frame Lens Suggestions for D700

Panther

Howdy All,

Finally am moving into the Full Frame World and was

wondering what ya'll have found that works well on

the D700???

I do have quite a few lenses but most are DX and
will work somewhat, but not to the full capabilities
of the Camera.

Tamaron 28-75 2.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Nikon 17-55 2.8
Nikon 50 1.4
Sigma 70-200 2.8


Appreciate any help or suggestions !!!

Kindest Regards,

Craig

adbsgicom

On my D700, my favorite all-around is the Nikon 24-120 f/4. Insanely sharp, light (relatively), really nice range. On the faster side, I ended up saving some money and going with the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and have been quite happy with it both for portrait and indoor sports.

-a

Panther

adbsgicom wrote: »

On my D700, my favorite all-around is the Nikon 24-120 f/4. Insanely sharp, light (relatively), really nice range. On the faster side, I ended up saving some money and going with the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and have been quite happy with it both for portrait and indoor sports.

-a

Howdy Andrew,

Thanks so much, that is exactly the kind of info I am looking for.

rookieshooter

All of the gold band lenses are awesome. What is your budget and what do you shoot?

ThatCanonGuy

Yeah, a fast prime other than 50 might be good. I find that 35mm is great, and 35 1.4 on FF is amazing (from the shots I've seen... haven't used it). An 85mm would be good too. But like rookieshooter said, it depends on your subjects and budget.

Panther

rookieshooter wrote: »

All of the gold band lenses are awesome. What is your budget and what do you shoot?

Howdy Rookieshooter,

I guess I never think about what I shoot, love to shoot everything<G>
and I'll leave the budget open since I'm kind of dreamin' at this stage:D

Panther

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Yeah, a fast prime other than 50 might be good. I find that 35mm is great, and 35 1.4 on FF is amazing (from the shots I've seen... haven't used it). An 85mm would be good too. But like rookieshooter said, it depends on your subjects and budget.

Howdy TCG,

Appreciate the reply and suggestions, some wide Primes might be just the ticket,
I've seen some stunning work with them.

Thanks again !!!

Matthew Saville

The 24-120 f/4 is the best bang-for-buck all-around lens on the D700, unless you're REALLY hardcore into low-light photojournalism in which case you would of course consider the 24-70 2.8 instead. However for a "versatility" factor, the 24-120 f/4 wins because it's lighter, has more range, and is stabilized.

And if you get a zoom that goes as wide as 24mm, that Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 will actually work GREAT on full-frame at 16mm, so you don't have to go and buy a massive 14-24, or a 16-35 / 17-35. The Tokina actually works okay at ~15mm too if you don't use filters, or even 14mm without filters and cropping to 16:9, which is why I love love LOVE it for shooting time lapses that end up at 16:9 anyways.

Other than that, yeah you could consider adding to your prime lineup, either a 35 or 85 (or both) depending on your budget, needs, and style of shooting. If you're an "everything" type, you might want to just get both ranges, the 35 f/2 and the new 85 f/1.8 AFS-G won't cost you more than a SINGLE f/1.4 prime in that range! Otherwise, if you know you just LOVE a certain focal length, (say, 50mm on crop = ~85mm on full-frame) ...then you might consider getting the Nikon 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4, or the older Nikon 85 1.4 too of course.

Of course back to that 24-120, you already have the Tamron 28-75, and if you like that lens then maybe you'd consider the newer 24-70 Tamron, with stabilization! If you're addicted to f/2.8, (and it seems you may be) then compare that new Tamron with the Nikon 24-120 before purchasing.

Personally, I'd get the primes first though. I dunno, I just like the simplicity and old fashioned techniques associates with just bringing 1-2 primes along with me. I'll go on most EVERY casual outing with just 1-2 primes, usually a 35 or 85.

=Matt=

=Matt=

Panther

Howdy Matt,

Thanks so very much for your very thoughtful and insightful post.

I'd looked at the 24-120 as I'd seen some posts about it's sharpness is
unbelievable, and as you'd said, a great walkaround lens, and not giving
up quality for convenience.

Your Prime Suggestion is really neat as well, I don't shoot for money, but
yet still want super image quality and Primes seem to show a particular look
and style that I like. It would also sure lighten up the camera bag !!!

Thanks so much again, I think this looks like a great solution.

Have a Great Weekend !!!

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The 24-120 f/4 is the best bang-for-buck all-around lens on the D700, unless you're REALLY hardcore into low-light photojournalism in which case you would of course consider the 24-70 2.8 instead. However for a "versatility" factor, the 24-120 f/4 wins because it's lighter, has more range, and is stabilized.

And if you get a zoom that goes as wide as 24mm, that Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 will actually work GREAT on full-frame at 16mm, so you don't have to go and buy a massive 14-24, or a 16-35 / 17-35. The Tokina actually works okay at ~15mm too if you don't use filters, or even 14mm without filters and cropping to 16:9, which is why I love love LOVE it for shooting time lapses that end up at 16:9 anyways.

Other than that, yeah you could consider adding to your prime lineup, either a 35 or 85 (or both) depending on your budget, needs, and style of shooting. If you're an "everything" type, you might want to just get both ranges, the 35 f/2 and the new 85 f/1.8 AFS-G won't cost you more than a SINGLE f/1.4 prime in that range! Otherwise, if you know you just LOVE a certain focal length, (say, 50mm on crop = ~85mm on full-frame) ...then you might consider getting the Nikon 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4, or the older Nikon 85 1.4 too of course.

Of course back to that 24-120, you already have the Tamron 28-75, and if you like that lens then maybe you'd consider the newer 24-70 Tamron, with stabilization! If you're addicted to f/2.8, (and it seems you may be) then compare that new Tamron with the Nikon 24-120 before purchasing.

Personally, I'd get the primes first though. I dunno, I just like the simplicity and old fashioned techniques associates with just bringing 1-2 primes along with me. I'll go on most EVERY casual outing with just 1-2 primes, usually a 35 or 85.

=Matt=

=Matt=

System

Nikon or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II
Nikon 60 f/2.8 D macro
Nikon 50 f/1.8 D

Matthew Saville

Panther wrote: »

Howdy Matt,

Thanks so very much for your very thoughtful and insightful post.

I'd looked at the 24-120 as I'd seen some posts about it's sharpness is
unbelievable, and as you'd said, a great walkaround lens, and not giving
up quality for convenience.

Your Prime Suggestion is really neat as well, I don't shoot for money, but
yet still want super image quality and Primes seem to show a particular look
and style that I like. It would also sure lighten up the camera bag !!!

Thanks so much again, I think this looks like a great solution.

Have a Great Weekend !!!

Think less about image "quality", and just about whatever is practical for your shooting needs. Not quantitative image quality, but qualitative if you know what I mean. A zoom can deliver INCREDIBLE image quality these days, and in a light, affordable package indeed.

I like primes simply because that is my style of shooting. Much of the time I'm shooting ambient light, no flash, and on top of that (especially if it's a casual event) ...I'm trying to push myself to think creatively, which a prime certainly can help with.

Since you already have 28-75 and 70-200 covered, I would shoot with those lenses for a while and see how you like their performance on full-frame, before diving into any other lenses. Sell off the 17-55 DX, and with that money you could probably fund 100% of a 35 f/2 and an 85 1.8 AFS-G. That's the ONLY move I would make right now, without having you get a feel for how you like full-frame and how your current full-frame lenses work out for you. The Tamron 28-75 may be all you need in a zoom, the Nikon 24-120 may just be an extra lens to sit in the bottom of your bag. Whereas primes open up a new world of low-light, unobtrusive shooting. If that is something that interests you, of course. If you hardly ever find yourself needing that, then sell the 17-55 and just wait, period...

My personal preference is to NEVER buy a lens based on recommendation alone, I have to feel a NEED for it myself before I buy. And personally, I've never ever bought a lens I regretted! I see people posting ALL THE TIME saying "I'm selling this lens, I just don't use it very much". I feel kinda bad for those people, and I would hate for the same to happen to you based on our default recommendations for what lenses are "nice"...

=Matt=

Panther

captain78 wrote: »

Nikon or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II
Nikon 60 f/2.8 D macro
Nikon 50 f/1.8 D

Howdy Captain78,

Thanks for the recommendations, looks like a good
list.

Panther

Morning Matt,

Thanks again for your input, and advice, it's really appreciated.

I do understand your reasoning, and believe me, as slow as I am
to decide and all the reading I do, this wouldn't be a snap decision<G>.

Lots of excellent ideas and thoughts to go with them.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Think less about image "quality", and just about whatever is practical for your shooting needs. Not quantitative image quality, but qualitative if you know what I mean. A zoom can deliver INCREDIBLE image quality these days, and in a light, affordable package indeed.

I like primes simply because that is my style of shooting. Much of the time I'm shooting ambient light, no flash, and on top of that (especially if it's a casual event) ...I'm trying to push myself to think creatively, which a prime certainly can help with.

Since you already have 28-75 and 70-200 covered, I would shoot with those lenses for a while and see how you like their performance on full-frame, before diving into any other lenses. Sell off the 17-55 DX, and with that money you could probably fund 100% of a 35 f/2 and an 85 1.8 AFS-G. That's the ONLY move I would make right now, without having you get a feel for how you like full-frame and how your current full-frame lenses work out for you. The Tamron 28-75 may be all you need in a zoom, the Nikon 24-120 may just be an extra lens to sit in the bottom of your bag. Whereas primes open up a new world of low-light, unobtrusive shooting. If that is something that interests you, of course. If you hardly ever find yourself needing that, then sell the 17-55 and just wait, period...

My personal preference is to NEVER buy a lens based on recommendation alone, I have to feel a NEED for it myself before I buy. And personally, I've never ever bought a lens I regretted! I see people posting ALL THE TIME saying "I'm selling this lens, I just don't use it very much". I feel kinda bad for those people, and I would hate for the same to happen to you based on our default recommendations for what lenses are "nice"...

=Matt=

Zerodog

I love the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 combo. For 1 do it all the 28-300 was pretty cool. I took it to yellowstone and was very impressed with it. Just not super wide.

Panther

Zerodog wrote: »

I love the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 combo. For 1 do it all the 28-300 was pretty cool. I took it to yellowstone and was very impressed with it. Just not super wide.

Howdy,

Thanks very much, that would sure be something to look into,

I agree on the first Combo though, I'll bet is really hard to beat for
image quality and speed.

Thanks again!!!