Any photographers about?

D

DexterMorgan

A Smooth-Skin
I'm making a switch from IT back to photography after a 4 year break. This is the kit I plan to purchase in the near future:

Nikon D700
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d700/index.htm
Nikkor 14-24/2.8
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/index.htm
Nikkor 50/1.4
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/index.htm
Nikkor 60/2.8 Micro
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/micro/af-s_micro60mmf_28g/index.htm
Nikkor 80-200/2.8
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/zoom80-200mmf_28d/index.htm

Also, Alien Bee lightening system:
http://alienbees.com/busy.html

(with 2 B800 and 2 B1600 strobes, also the Vagabond II portable power system)

I'm still undecided between ultra-wide 14-24/2.8, useful for wacky near-fisheye pics and the more conventional 17-35/2.8. Can't afford both.

Discuss.
 
I'd go with the convensional ones. Unless you specifically need to make wide angle photos.

I've got a Nikon d80, and could afford only one objective, so i chose the 18-135/3.5-5.6.
 
Well, 35mm is probably the lens I'd use least often from the whole range. 14 is good for fisheye effects, 24mm is a nice "normal" wide angle lens...
 
Well, i bought my camera for astrophotography mainly. I wouldn't mind using it for 'normal' photography, if i didn't suck so much at it. All the technical things i've learned are nothing: i am uninspired at photography.
I don't like fisheye effects so much because they distort the picture. Can fit a lot of nice things in that ultra-wide angle though...
 
Short answer:

I would get the 14-24mm rather than the 17-35mm, due to my combo lens set. There is a 35-70mm, but it's definitely not as sharp as the 24-70mm. 14-24mm is also a better 'effect' lens compared to the 17-35mm, IMO. Bear in mind that the 14-24mm is a HUGE, HEAVY lens with a BULGING front element.


Long answer:


Do you really need FX ?

50mm f/1.4 is my most used lens so far. You don't really need f/1.4 if you use a D700.. and some people swear that f/1.8 produces better picture (sweet spot effect). Still, not by far.

I would love to get my hand on the Tokina 11-16mm or the 14-24mm f/2.8 you mentioned.

I have a 70-200mm VR bought second hand at a good price. It's moderately large and heavy, so I rarely bring it for walking. Best for portraits, and in situations where you can't reach within 20m to the subject. Soft buttery pretty bokeh. If you plan to use it on a tripod, buy a really good one; it's heavy.

So what I would get: 11-16mm / 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm VR


Some concerns:

- The Tokina 11-16mm is zoom-limited on an FX body ;).

- 14-24mm on FX is damn wide enough.

- Shooting indoors-only in a studio frees up a lot of limitations. You can bring as many lens as you need :).

D700 has a good ISO noise control, so you don't really need to always go for the fast-lenses.
 
DX Format cameras always felt crippled to me. After shooting with film Nikon F4 for years and years all the x1.7 bodies with tiny prisms felt like toys to me...

I've also found that faster lenses often, if not always, have better build quality, and in general use superior technology in correcting various lens defects. It's not just about the f stop :)
 
You sound like you know a lot already :D.

To counter my suggestion, the 14-24mm doesn't take filters due to the front element. The size and front glass is a real put-off :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top