Okay, Lens Help Please.

[Steen]

Marc, Thomas Hogan has made a visually nice list of the zoom lenses.
He also says he is going to make a similar list of the primes in about a month.

He is using these color indications:

Green = DX consumer zoom
Red = DX pro zoom
Blue = FX consumer zoom
Yellow = FX pro zoom

At the bottom of the page you can see the Professional FX Zoom Kit:
http://www.bythom.com/nikonlens.htm

Hope it is a bit of a help in order to gain a general view.
Steen

 

[Mitch Alland]

...I know you say that you are not interested in the 14-24 for all the obvious reasons...

Woody, what are the obvious reasons, bulging front element and no filters?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[gromitspapa]

Nevermind...

 

[Mitch Alland]

What is it? Do I have to know the secret handshake to find out?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[woodyspedden]

Mitch

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this one.

I was referring to the reasons why Marc and Ray did not feel the need for any lens this wide. Of course the other reasons people are concerned is the lack of filters and the bulging front element with chance for damage.

I do like to shoot wide and am not very concerned with the "other" issues. I find the files from the D3 using this lens to be superb. So to me, the cost is not that high and the value is very high. JMHO

Woody

 

[David K]

Marc,

I had the 200/2 VR for a while before I got my D3. The lens is amazing but with 6400 ISO available you can probably get the shot without it. Of course if you're looking for the creamy bokeh, that glass will give it to you.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Thanks, Woody. That's my take as well on this lens; and I'm not bothered by the lack of filter thread or the front element bulge. When buying my D300 three weeks ago I was considering it and the new 24-70mm f/2.8, but, with the D300 1.5x factor, found the coverage of the 17-35mm f/2.8, which gives me 25.5-52.5mm EFOV in one lens, to be more convenient and, so far, the latter lens looks very good to me.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[gromitspapa]

What is it? Do I have to know the secret handshake to find out?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

LOL. No, I originally posted that Amazon had the 200VR, as it came up in stock on a couple of searches. But when you go to Amazon, it says "usually ships in 1-3 months." I should have edited the post differently. Why can't we delete posts here, at least within a few minutes of posting? Seems like that would solve some double posts, too.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Heh, heh. Here in Bangkok this lens in readily available in camera stores. Impressively, when I bought my D300 and two lenses the saleswoman, all on 22 years was able to answer all the technical questions I asked: I then found out that she's a Nikon employee seconded to the store. Good training by Nikon.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

I had the 200/2 VR for a while before I got my D3. The lens is amazing but with 6400 ISO available you can probably get the shot without it. Of course if you're looking for the creamy bokeh, that glass will give it to you.

Thanks David. B&H just alerted me of immediate availability and I'll have it on Tuesday. Ordered the AFS 1.4X and the drop in Polarizer with it. 280/2.8 VR with extender... not bad.

I know it's a beast, but it's a tad less heavy than my Canon 200/1.8 was, and it has VR where the Canon didn't.

I have some specific uses for this lens that will keep it busy. I'll need the f/2, VR and the high ISO of the Nikon to accomplish the tasks.

 

[woodyspedden]

Thanks, Woody. That's my take as well on this lens; and I'm not bothered by the lack of filter thread or the front element bulge. When buying my D300 three weeks ago I was considering it and the new 24-70mm f/2.8, but, with the D300 1.5x factor, found the coverage of the 17-35mm f/2.8, which gives me 25.5-52.5mm EFOV in one lens, to be more convenient and, so far, the latter lens looks very good to me.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Mitch

The 17-35 was and is one of my favorite lenses. Flare control is tremendous and colors and contrast very good. Just felt that with the D3 the 24-70 is a better choice. Couldn't agree more with your logic re the D300

Happy shooting

Woody

 

[jonboring]

Lloyd has an excellent paid review of the ZF line up. Well worth the cost if you are considering purchasing a few.

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html

 

[jonoslack]

I do like to shoot wide and am not very concerned with the "other" issues. I find the files from the D3 using this lens to be superb. So to me, the cost is not that high and the value is very high. JMHO

Woody

Hi Woody
I hope you're well
I'm dithering on the brink of buying a D3 (with the 24-70 as a starter). If I go ahead the next lens would be the 14-24, I'm not worried about filters or bulges either, but I am worried about soft corners with vegetation!.

How good is it wide open at 14mm?

 

[Mitch Alland]

Jono, do you really like shooting landscapes with a 14 or 16mm lens? I would limit myself to 21mm at the widest, and would be interested in the 14-24mm for FX fomat only for it's 21mm capability, which means that, for me, it would only make sense for a DX camera like the D300.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[robmac]

Jono - check:

www.photozone.de or www.16-9.net for full reviews of the 'miracle from Nikon' and in the case of 16-9 tests against the Leica 19, etc., Chasseur D'Image also gives it 5 stars.

If your French is up to the task, the latest issue (in NA) tests a whack of old and new Nikon glass on the D3 and 300 - including the 14-24.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, do you really like shooting landscapes with a 14 or 16mm lens? I would limit myself to 21mm at the widest, and would be interested in the 14-24mm for FX fomat only for it's 21mm capability, which means that, for me, it would only make sense for a DX camera like the D300.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

HI Mitch
Absolutely - I don't only shoot wide angle of course, but I think it's because our 'landscapes' are so much about the sky (it's pretty damned flat around here!).
Here are a couple of samples from the last few days:

These were all taken with the E3 and the (remarkable) 7-14mm F4 lens (it's about the same size as the Nikon 14-24, and the same range).

I'm really not interested in the D300 - it's probably a marginal improvement on the E3 for low light, but in good light the E3 works well, and there are some excellent mid range lenses (unlike Nikon).

Right now I could do with the D3 for some wedding work (I got lumbered) because of the low light, but the carrot is the D3x, and if these lenses are as good as they're reviewed, then it's a tempting step

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - check:

www.photozone.de or www.16-9.net for full reviews of the 'miracle from Nikon' and in the case of 16-9 tests against the Leica 19, etc., Chasseur D'Image also gives it 5 stars.

If your French is up to the task, the latest issue (in NA) tests a whack of old and new Nikon glass on the D3 and 300 - including the 14-24.

Thank you Rob
that 14-24 seems popular doesn't it! the 16-9 review is very persuasive (corners are what usually bugs me about wide angle, and it's where the m8 seems to win out).

thanks again

 

[robmac]

No worries. Certainly looks like Nikon have reset a couple of bars for Canon et al this season.. All the better for everyone.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks to everyone for the input. Much appreciated.

Here's where I netted out for now and the remainder of the lenses are on their way:

D3, AF17-35/2.8, Zeiss 50/2 macro, Nikon AF85/1.4, Zeiss 100/2 Macro, Nikon AF135/2DC, Nikon AF200/2 VR, 1.4X, V to Nikon adapter= all Zeiss CFi/CFE and FE lenses I already own.

Gotta sell some more stuff : -)

 

[KurtKamka]

Hi Marc, when the AF135/2DC arrives, could you post a picture or two from the lens? I'm curious to see how it performs. Thanks.

Kurt