Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 + 24-70 f2.8 for D300?

[Mitch Alland]

...Those 3 zooms would serve you very well to cover everything that you might want to do...I look forward to seeing what impact a D300 and the new Nikon glass has on your style...

Ray, you must be a fortune teller because when I started this thread I was only musing about how good this equipment might be. But yesterday I went to a camera store and looked at the D300 and the three lenses and found the technology dazzlinG: the fast and accurate autofocus, the responsiveness with no discernible shutter lag, the brightness of the 100% viewfinder, the well-dampened mirror slap and the relatively quiet, low-pitched shutter sound — not to speak of how well the controls are laid out. The other thing that happened yesterday is that my business trip to Namibia was confirmed and departure accelerated for Friday midnight. My wife will join me and we'll have some eight days in game parks; and that is why I'll get the 70-200, a lens that I would not normally buy because I don't really like to shoot at more than 50mm EFOV. But, from what you say, now I have to live up to taking good pictures with this equipment...

The only regret I have is that the native aspect ratio is 3:2 — that vestige of 35mm film — while I've gotten to like to compose in the 4:3 format. I looked briefly at the Olympus E3, but simply don't have the time to explore this. I suppose if I really like 4:3 I can crop to that, but it would be nice to be able to see it in the camera.

On the Zeiss 28ZF: this sounds interesting but I simply do not have time to look into this before my departure on Friday night.

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

 

[gromitspapa]

Mitch- I'd suggest getting either a 1.4 or 1.7 TC as well. I don't think you'll have enough reach at 200mm. I suppose you could return it or sell it if you don't use it.

 

[Terry]

Ray, you must be a fortune teller because when I started this thread I was only musing about how good this equipment might be. But yesterday I went to a camera store and looked at the D300 and the three lenses and found the technology dazzlinG: the fast and accurate autofocus, the responsiveness with no discernible shutter lag, the brightness of the 100% viewfinder, the well-dampened mirror slap and the relatively quiet, low-pitched shutter sound — not to speak of how well the controls are laid out. The other thing that happened yesterday is that my business trip to Namibia was confirmed and departure accelerated for Friday midnight. My wife will join me and we'll have some eight days in game parks; and that is why I'll get the 70-200, a lens that I would not normally buy because I don't really like to shoot at more than 50mm EFOV. But, from what you say, now I have to live up to taking good pictures with this equipment...

The only regret I have is that the native aspect ratio is 3:2 — that vestige of 35mm film — while I've gotten to like to compose in the 4:3 format. I looked briefly at the Olympus E3, but simply don't have the time to explore this. I suppose if I really like 4:3 I can crop to that, but it would be nice to be able to see it in the camera.

On the Zeiss 28ZF: this sounds interesting but I simply do not have time to look into this before my departure on Friday night.

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

When you get back and want to sell the 70-200 :grin: send me a PM!!

 

[vieri]

Mitch- I'd suggest getting either a 1.4 or 1.7 TC as well. I don't think you'll have enough reach at 200mm. I suppose you could return it or sell it if you don't use it.

Second that - the 1.4x TC is fantastic, no perceivable loss in IQ, while the 1.7x TC would effect slightly your pics (sharpness & contrast especially). 200 mm is a EFL of 300, but for safari I would think you'd be better served with a 420 EFL and the TC 1.4 will only loose you a stop.

Enjoy the trip!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

boats and such. I came only with the D300 and 180 2.8 since that is all i have at the moment but the 180 is not very heavy or long and goes in a bag nice plus it is very good at it's price tag of only 750 dollars. I will post some images but I know it will be late in the game for your trip. But one thing is I really like the way the D300 handles

 

[Mitch Alland]

Thanks for the advice, everybody. Here is my confession of what I bought today. I should say that the saleswoman, and 22 year-old who studies at night at Ramkamhaeng, an open university with over a million students, which must be the largest in the world was the one who pushed me over the hill; she is very knowledgeable: it turns out that she is a Nikon employee, who has worked for Nikon for two years but is based at this particular camera store. After I bought it she showed me how to use the main features of the camera and the lenses — very good service.

Of course I bought the D300 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens because I'm going to Namibia and I can always sell it easily, as evidenced for the above gracious offers, if I decide I no longer want it. At 200mm it has an EFOV of 300mm with the D300, which, based on my experienced if living in Uganda years ago and camping all over East Africa, at that time was not dangerous, gives me enough reach for almost all big game, considering that I'm not into bird photography. On the 1.4TC or 1.7TC, I simply don't have enough time to get either before I leave tomorrow night.

However, instead of buying the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses that I had been considering I bought the 17-35mm f/2.8 lens, which, apparently, until the 14-24mm came out, was the best Nikon wide angle zoom lens. This lens is somewhat lighter then the 14-24mm and gives me the 28mm and 40mm EFOV that I am primarily interested in and, at 17mm, it gives me about 25mm EFOV, which is not that far off from 21mm that is only of secondary interest. Obviously with this choice I don't have to carry two lenses to get most of what I want, and my feeling is that the 14-24mm with its huge, bulging front element could look somewhat intimidating to, or at least attract more attention than the 17-35mm from, the subjects of street photography, which currently is my main photographic interest — although it will be interesting whether this will change after the acquisition of the D300.

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

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Mitch that is what i got also was the 17-35 . Mine comes today but i used it on a D200 some time ago and it is a stellar lens and smaller than the 14-24. Use them both in good health and enjoy. Look forward to seeing some images

 

[woodyspedden]

Ken Rockwell is also the guy that wrote that his (at the time) newly acquired Nikon D70 produced better images than his 4x5 view camera. The guy is not an authority on IQ or IQ if you know what I mean. In the classes and workshops that I teach, I always seem to get someone who says, "..but Ken Rockwell said...." Then I take the next ten minutes to explain that yes, we do in fact need a light meter in the studio even though Ken says otherwise.

Personally, on a DX size I prefer the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 VR combo with a 60 macro and maybe 50 or 85 1.4 thrown in. This was the kit I'd carry around when I'd shoot the D2X. Although it is arguably the most popular Nikon lens of all time, I'm not a huge fan of the 18-200. It is a jack of all trades and master of none. Too much distortion at both ends. I took the 18-200 with a D200 to NYC a while back. The only thing that kept going through my head was: Gee, I wish I brought my Leica instead. Bad lens for buildings.

The 17-35 is pretty prone to flare when shooting into the sun. But, so is the 17-55. These ain't 19 Elmarits guys. I also prefer the extra reach which works out to a focal equiv. of 27-90. Great lens for events and whatnots. The 24-70 is just stellar, though. I mean, just in a league of its own. I do like it very much on either the D3 or the D300, where it becomes a 35-105, perfect for studio.

One of my standard pieces of advice has been to invest in better glass that will last you longer than the camera. The 24-70 falls into that category. After Guy tires of the D300 (I'll give him about a week ) he could use the FX lens on the D3.

The 14-24 is a bit big for the D300 but again is a stellar performer. 21-36 is again a great focal range with the option to go to full frame. If someone has a budget choice of going with a D3 and lesser lenses or the D300 with these two new ones, the choice for the better optics is a no-brainer in my book.

Hope this helps.

David

David

Flare from the 17-35 is not my experience nor that of other reviewers like Bjorn Roerslett. In fact the 17-35 gets the highest of marks for its flare performance and in Bjorns opinion was a let down with the 17-55. Not denying your experiences but they don't correlate with mine. I think the 17-35 is one of Nikons all time greats.

Woody

 

[woodyspedden]

Mitch,

One other thing you may want to consider, is the Zeiss 25 or 28 ZF prime on the D300. This makes for a reasonable size package on the D300, which is easy to focus with the factory screen and focus assist light. It would fall into your FL range that you shoot, give you great image quality, good light gathering with the max aperture & ISO performance available. The big advantage is that is much smaller and lighter than using either of the new Nikon Zooms. On the D300, the balance is really nice with the ZF lens.

Best,

Ray

Although not an expensive option I would recommend that folks take a look at the Voightlander 40 2.0 and the 58 1.4. Low cost but very high IQ and super small and light. I used these extensively on my D300 during a six week vacation in Florida and just loved the package. Small, lightweight etc. When I would pick up my D3 and 24-70 it was like, Oh My God, how heavy this is. Of course the IQ differences between the two are significant so I am not saying this is a replacement............just one more option. YMMV

Woody

 

[popum]

Mitch

You can make the D300 operate more like a GRD if you wish...

What you do is disable the focus on the half push of the shutter. Then you auto focus using the AF-ON button that is under your right thumb.

Once your focused on an object, the focus doesn't change unless you hit the AF-ON button again. You can use this like an easy, but variable, SNAP function that you can change in an instance.

Furthermore, if you set the focus mode on the front of the camera to 'C', the focus will keep changing as long as you hold the AF-ON button down. You can then pop the shutter whenever you want with ABSOLUTELY NO DELAY.

If you do this I also suggest you set the shutter to release rather than focus.

Good luck on your trip... I've had my D300 for two days now and am loving it. Works better (for me) than my now departed M8... that's just me , not the camera.

Mike

 

[Mango]

Something to look forward to in Namibia (see Desert-Photos portfolio):

http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=830552&include=all&unlimit=1

Happy shooting!

 

[asabet]

Mitch, congrats, I'm sure you will enjoy the new gear; and we'll all enjoy seeing what you do with it. I'm living vicariously through you and Guy with your shiny, new D300s . Regards, Amin

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I did come home to my 17-35 from David and sitting here waiting for the 105mm macro and 85 1.4 hopefully today. Now need to get out there and shoot them is what I really need to do. :ROTFL:

 

[Mitch Alland]

Mitch, congrats, I'm sure you will enjoy the new gear; and we'll all enjoy seeing what you do with it. I'm living vicariously through you and Guy with your shiny, new D300s . Regards, Amin

All this pressure! <grin>.

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

 

[kit laughlin]

Mitch, I have the 14–24, 24–70, and the 70–200 VR with the 1,4 TC II extender. The three-lens kit is all I need for the vast majority of my commercial work. I have a D300 as a backup, but I much prefer the files from the D3. Happy to explain.

I have all the ZF lenses but never use them for work. The zooms, and especially for my work the 24–70, are that good it is not even tempting to take the ZFs into the field. I have the 24 TS coming this week (big architectural interior project this year), and the ZF 100/2 macro is the best lens I have ever used for the small product stuff, so I guess I will need to describe my kit as a "five lens and two body" affair from now on. It's still small, and most jobs only need two of them.

But—walkaround/street shooting duty? No way, for me, anyway. Maybe the D300 with one of the ZFs (25 or 35; that's a real possibility), but with the look you seem to be trying for with the Ricohs, I honestly think you'd be better off sticking with them—they seem to suit your style very well, esp. the deep DOF. Even the D300 minus the grip is a fairly substantial camera, and folk will definitely know that you have something with you when you walk around with it.

I have the DP-1 preordered, and I am going to order the E-420 and the 21/3.5 pancake, and sell the one that I like the least. IMHO, either of these (the DP-1 with one of the Voigtlander mini finders) would be a better choice, I believe, for what you do. What do others think?

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

The focal lengths that I'm really interested in for street photography are 21, 28 and 40 EFL, for which the 14-24mm lens on the D300 would almost get me there, to 36mm EFL, that is.

Mitch, as soon as I read this, I thought to myself: he really needs the Nikkor 17-35/2.8, which will at least cover the 28mm and 40mm EFLs. So I was happy to see that's the choice you made -- because it's the lens I chose when I purchased my D300. One consequence of using a Ricoh GRD for an extended period is that I've grown to like the 28mm EFL. Since I also used the Ricoh's close-focusing a lot, another attraction of the 28mm ZF and AI-S lenses is that they focus to .24m (about 9.5 inches). Not exactly macro, but pretty close all the same.

And Mike Johnston's evangelism for the 40mm EFL led me to try a 28mm lens on an APS-C camera, whereupon I discovered that it felt "just right". Since the 14-24/2.8 isn't quite long enough to include the 40mm EFL and I was put off by its weight and size, the 17-35/2.8 was a natural choice.

Ray's and Woody's suggestions about the 25/28 ZF and 40/58 Voigtlander lenses are absolutely worth considering. I have the 28 ZF and it's a great match for the D300, as is the Nikkor 28/2 AI-S. Both are easy to focus on a D300 and, by specifying the focal length and maximum aperture for these lenses (which don't have a CPU), you get access to a whole range of CPU functions, including matrix metering. I'd been hoping to shoot a series of 28mm comparison tests this Easter weekend but it's cold and rainy in Sydney, not at all the weather for switching lenses repeatedly.

Both the Voigtlander lenses have CPU chips so that, apart from manual focusing, they behave like modern Nikkor lenses. The Voigtlander 40/2 is a sweet little pancake lens which, as Woody says, is a joy to use on the D300. I missed out on the first production run of the 58/1.4 but CameraQuest now has the second production run lenses in stock so I'm about to place an order.

As I greatly admire what you achieve with small sensor cameras, I'll look forward to seeing the results you get with the D300.

 

[Mitch Alland]

...I have the DP-1 preordered, and I am going to order the E-420 and the 21/3.5 pancake, and sell the one that I like the least. IMHO, either of these (the DP-1 with one of the Voigtlander mini finders) would be a better choice, I believe, for what you do. What do others think?

Kit, it's an interesting thought, which I have considered as well — I'll have to see how this D300 kit workd out for me. Of course it may lead me to do some different type of photography as well.

Jonathan, for a while I'll be shooting the 17-35mm lens at 28 and 40mm EFOV to see how that works out — I'm looking forward to the quick autofocus — before I try any non-AF primes.

I now at Johannesburg Airport, where they have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and I had to rein myself in form making an impulse purchase, but if I had a full-frame camera thus is the lens that I would want. For the D300, now that I have the 17-35mm there is not much pont for me because I don't really need anything beyond 50mm EFOV for my normal shooting, and of course that was one of the considerations in getting the 17-35mm, that is that I would need only one lens.

—Mitch/Johannesburg Airport

 

[kit laughlin]

Mitch, that lens you mention (24–70/2.8) is simply stellar (speaking as someone like many here who has owned the best Leica and Zeiss glass, used on Canon FF bodies via adapters). And its focus acquisition is accurate and instantaneous, too. But on the D3, with the huge hood, no on is not going to know you are in the neighbourhood!

I think the 17–35 is a great choice for the D300 and frankly I love the idea of a one-camera-one-lens kit for specific types of shooting (I say this while I pack three strobes, the D3 and D300, zooms, etc., etc., for a book shoot next week, in a Pilates studio with dancers as models). I digress. I look forward to seeing what you do with this combo. I have been thinking of getting the same lens myself, and also for the D300. cheers, kl

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Here just some real quicky tests with the 17-35 reveals what i always knew from the past , it is a stellar lens that holds detail very well even in the corners. One shot at 17mm and the next at 35mm at F7.1 . i did do my normal output sharpening and they just look right on the money.

This lens is small in comparision to the 14-24 and 24-70 but i don't want to take away from those lenses there are just superb. Mike Hatam shot the 14-24 in Moab on his 1dsMKIII and i played with the 24-70 from Ray and those lenses sing. But the 17-35 can get the job done and i like the focal length of this one better for the D300

 

[KurtKamka]

For me, the most impressive thing about these Nikons (after spending a year and a half with the M8) is just how nice and accurate the image is right out of the gate in terms of WB. They are a treat to use. And, the wides are certainly a welcome sight after fiddling with a wide variety of alternatives on Canon equipment.

Kurt