Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 50 of 50

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

  1. #1
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    I must say that I'm dazzled by everything I read about the technology of the D300 and the two new Nikkor f/2.8 lenses (14-24mm and 24-70mm). But Ken Rockwell says that it's crazy to use these lenses for a DX camera like the D300 because you don't get what you pay for in terms of money and weight because you don't use the sharpness all the way out to the edges of a full frame that these lenses produces on an FX sensor; instead for a camera like the the D300 he recommends the 12-24mm DX and and the 18-200mm VR, but the maximum apertures of the latter two lenses are only f/4 and f/3.5-5.6.

    Do you think these lenses make sense for a D300?

    Not that I'm rushing out to get a D300 and these two f/2.8 lenses: the weight of this outfit makes me pause for thought; also I would have liked to have "real" Live View, like on small sensor cameras and on the new Olympus E420.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  2. #2
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

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

    Sorry if this is too off topic, but apropos Rocky here's a good and funny read
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...s-matter.shtml

  3. #3
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    It's a great question Mitch. I just got a D300 yesterday and i played with a 24-70 and it is a stellar lens but i opted for a older 17-35 for now. One because of money but two because it is smaller and i still get a 2.8. One of the issues i see on the D300 will be good at ISO 1600 but above that i still have question marks. So in a sense the slower lenses will be tougher in low light. So i do see that as a issue for one and getting DX lenses also puts you in a corner a little because they won't be good if you decide to move up to the D3 which is something that may happen for me. So I picked very carefully for the D300 but have to think ahead a little in case i make that move. Right now with what i picked i can move up easily without selling something from my Nikon kit. I did get the 17-35 , 85 1.4 , 105 macro and 180. Now if i had the money i would have just as easily went 14-24 and 24-70 because it's possible to move to the D3 for me. But i can still take the 17-35 along .

    Now the 17-35 is a smaller lens than both the new ones. The 24-70 is a big lens and so is the 14-24 . But the Zeiss 50 1.4 is nice and small and there wide's are noted to be very good , so if size and weight are issue that is a alternative and they will work with the FX sensor. Even though there manual focus which i still prefer any day.
    Now if your only going to stay D300 than the others are supposed to be very good but you still have that speed issue. I personally also dislike variable aperture lenses at all costs because i do use flash a lot for certain things.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #4
    Member gromitspapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I think those lenses are big, heavy, and expensive for a D300. The 14-24 won't mount filters, either. A lot of what Ken Rockwell says has been thoroughly discredited, so you have to be careful following his advice (which I sometimes do). He may be right about the wasted edge-to-edge sharpness. Guy's 17-35 is a killer lens, and I believe a little better than the 17-55 DX that I have as well as full frame. Since I rarely make prints (or even large ones), I don't think I'm missing anything and I like the added range for walk-around. The Tamron 17-50 is 1/3 the cost, smaller, lighter, and probably 95% of the lens the Nikon is performance-wise (but not build quality-wise). I'd add to the short zoom the stellar (full frame) 70-200VR. The upcoming Tokina 11-16 2.8 looks very interesting.

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member TRSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Maine, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

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

    This is not directly related to the original question, but more of a second big thumbs up for the 70-200VR. Of the 3 lenses I have for my D2Xs, it is clearly the standout. In fact, I'd put it right up there with some of the greatly admired specialized Leica glass that often generates so much swooning enthusiasm. Not to make a direct comparison, but rather to say that in the Nikon world, the 70-200 Vr is a standout lens that draws/paints in a very sweet way. And, it will build your biceps without a membership to a gym!

    As much as new gear is tempting, I've decided to wait until full frame becomes the norm instead of a stratospheric special-for-pros-only proposition before I get another Nikon body. I really want Nikon D300 body with FF. At which point I'll sell my DX lenses and keep the 70-200. Until then, there's still a lot of goodness left in my D2Xs.

  6. #6
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hollywood, FL
    Posts
    580
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  7. #7
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    I agree David i would have jumped all over the 14-24 and 24-70 but need to watch my money here initial but If and when I go to the D3 there on the top of the buy list. That 24-70 i played with was killer looking. i will make do for awhile and actually 3k for two lenses is a bargain coming from leica guy. i just want to make sure i like this Nikon D300 and the system. so i am being careful and also a little tight with my money right now.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  8. #8
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Yes, David, I must say I was, and am, attracted by the new 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, as well as by the D300. Assuming that I could deal with the exchequer, however, I'm still left with the fear of the huge weight of these three pieces of equipment.

    BTW, if I could deal with the weight of the D3, which I'm sure I cannot, I would get the 24-70 only and a good 21 because that's the widest that I want to go, but the 14-24 may be the best full-frame 21, or isn't it?

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  9. #9
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    Well you could go D300 and the new 14mm which is not as big. Than you get a nice 21mm prime. Just a thought.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Angle_AF.html
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  10. #10
    Senior Member vieri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Ginesio, Italy
    Posts
    983
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Mitch, I have the 14-24 and use it with a D300 & a D3. While of course on the D3 it has an amazing angle of view, on the D300 you still get 21-36 f2.8 with a great quality; the 12-24 gets you to 18-36, but at f4. Question is, which is more important for you: a 3 mm wider, much slower lens that you wouldn't be able to use eventually on a FF camera and 1000 US in your pocket, or a faster, 3 mm longer lens working fine on FF, and a wallet 1000 USD lighter? Money aside, the question is wide vs fast; the filter issue, while there, is IMHO less fundamental: I wouldn't have a polarizer on such a wide lens (funky effects), and if you want to use a tripod and ND filters you can either hold square filters in front of the lens, or do it digitally.

    I come from the 12-24 & 17-35, the latter a remain of my F5 days the 12-24 a necessity for architectural shots in my D2x times; I sold both to get the 14-24 - I didn't use it on a job yet, but my first impressions are very positive.

    About the 70-200 VR, nothing to say except it's a stellar performer - best thing since mid-tele-sliced-bread IMHO.

    Hope this helps
    Vieri Bottazzini
    Leica Ambassador | Formatt-Hitech Ambassador | ABIPP EP
    VIERI BOTTAZZINI PHOTOGRAPHER | VIERI BOTTAZZINI WORKSHOPS | VIERI BOTTAZZINI FINE ART

  11. #11
    Senior Member vieri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Ginesio, Italy
    Posts
    983
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Well you could go D300 and the new 14mm which is not as big. Than you get a nice 21mm prime. Just a thought.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Angle_AF.html
    The 14 mm is not known to be a stellar performer, though not a bad lens of course; price-wise, a 14, 20 & 24 mm would be more expensive than the zoom, and probably IQ would be overall worse. Nikon's WA zoom (I am talking 17-35, 14-24) are said to be better than equivalent prime in the same focal range... all you would gain, is some grams and some room in the bag: again, if this is important for you, you can sacrify some IQ (not much) in exchange for some weight (not much)...

    Tough decisions!
    Vieri Bottazzini
    Leica Ambassador | Formatt-Hitech Ambassador | ABIPP EP
    VIERI BOTTAZZINI PHOTOGRAPHER | VIERI BOTTAZZINI WORKSHOPS | VIERI BOTTAZZINI FINE ART

  12. #12
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I've had my 24-70 ever since it was released. My first try was on the D300, even though I sold the D300 to get the D3 after about a month.

    This lens is probably the best zoom that I have ever seen from Nikon or Canon.

    You really need to shoot this lens on these new cameras (either the D300 or D3) and play with the files. I would bet money that you will want one after working the file and printing.

    Yes, it is somewhat large but IQ and flexibility really make all the difference.

    This is one lens that is going to stay in my bag.

    I have played with the 14-24 and was very impressed, but don't own it and therefore don't really feel comfortable making comments on it.

    I will say that another recent lens which is just stellar is the 105 VR Macro. It works great in Macro and other distances.

    Best,

    Ray

  13. #13
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    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. The trouble, as those who've seen my current photography know, is that my pictures don't depend on resolution or fine gradation and, as I now shoot with the GRD2 using the LCD for framing because it helps achieve a loose, fluid style, I'd have to cross the Rubicons of framing with the viewfinder and carrying the weigh of the 14-24 with the D300. Not sure I can get myself to do that but it's interesting to dream about this kind of outfit, particularly if start changing my current style, which a new radically different camera can encourage one to do.

    What I do know is that if I got the 14-24mm lens and the D300 I couldn't resist getting the 24-70mm lens, and would probably also get the 70-200mm lens, which is enticing me because I have to travel to Namibia this weekend for 1-2 week trip...

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  14. #14
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Mitch,

    Those 3 zooms would serve you very well to cover everything that you might want to do. I love my 24-70, was impressed playing with the 14-24, and also love my 70-200. Since I opted for the D3, I don't need the 14-24 for my shooting. My third zoom will probably by the 200-400.

    Relative to the 70-200, there is a "rumor" that a new version is in the development pipe with the VRII system, a slight change to formula, and the new "N" coatings.

    I look forward to seeing what impact a D300 and the new Nikon glass has on your style.

    Best,

    Ray

  15. #15
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  16. #16
    Senior Member LCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by harmsr View Post
    ...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...
    Would you say as easy to focus as with the D3?

  17. #17
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi LCT,

    No not quite as easy on the D3. The D3 screen is a little brighter and the contrast pops into focus more. The D3 also has the arrows on each side of the dot for focus confirmation, plus seems to have a much smaller range of movement for focus which leaves the confirmation light lit.

    However, The D300 worked fine for me on the Zeiss lenses up to 50mm focal length. I struggled with the 85 and eventually sold it because of the focussing difficulty even though it was a great lens. (too many misses on focus)

    Since the 25 & 28 have more DOF they focus very easily on the D300. Even though these lenses have VERY close minimum focus distances, the screen is good enough at that close and resolution to do the focus without the confirmation light that you use at more distance.

    My primes are the Zeiss 25/2.8, Zeiss 50/1.4, Nikon 100/2.8 VR Macro, Zeiss 50/2.0 Macro. The 25/2.8 is a new addition that I really like. The close focus is amazing, along with the resolution at all distances, rendition of colors, and an OOF rendering which suites me well.


    Best,

    Ray

  18. #18
    Senior Member LCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by harmsr View Post
    ...The D300 worked fine for me on the Zeiss lenses up to 50mm focal length....
    Thank you Ray, so no problem at f/1.4 with the ZF 50/1.4?

  19. #19
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    LCT,

    I have no problem with the 50/1.4 even wide open on my since sold D200, sold D300, or the new D3.

    FYI only - The ZF 50/1.4 reminds me of the Pre-Asph Lux for the M. You do need to realize that it is soft at 1.4, cleans up at 2.0 significantly, then becomes very sharp at 2.8 and smaller aperture. It does very good on flare resistance, has nice color, great texture rendering, and very pleasing (IMHO) OOF rendering.

    Sean had a review about it on his site from a long time ago, which was done on the D200. I don't believe that he had any focus trouble on the D200 either. The D300 does focus easier than the D200.

    Best,

    Ray

  20. #20
    Senior Member LCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by harmsr View Post
    ..FYI only - The ZF 50/1.4 reminds me of the Pre-Asph Lux for the M. You do need to realize that it is soft at 1.4, cleans up at 2.0 significantly, then becomes very sharp at 2.8 and smaller aperture. It does very good on flare resistance, has nice color, great texture rendering, and very pleasing (IMHO) OOF rendering...
    Exactly what i like. I will know what to do if Leica does not launch an R10 to my likings next year. Thanks again.

  21. #21
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by harmsr View Post
    ...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/[email protected]/
    Last edited by Mitch Alland; 19th March 2008 at 17:10.

  22. #22
    Member gromitspapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    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/[email protected]/
    When you get back and want to sell the 70-200 send me a PM!!

  24. #24
    Senior Member vieri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Ginesio, Italy
    Posts
    983
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gromitspapa View Post
    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!
    Vieri Bottazzini
    Leica Ambassador | Formatt-Hitech Ambassador | ABIPP EP
    VIERI BOTTAZZINI PHOTOGRAPHER | VIERI BOTTAZZINI WORKSHOPS | VIERI BOTTAZZINI FINE ART

  25. #25
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  26. #26
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    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/[email protected]/
    Last edited by Mitch Alland; 20th March 2008 at 07:23.

  27. #27
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by dfarkas View Post
    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

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by harmsr View Post
    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

  30. #30
    Member popum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  31. #31
    Mango
    Guest

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

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

    http://photo.net/photodb/member-phot...=all&unlimit=1

    Happy shooting!

  32. #32
    asabet
    Guest

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

    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

  33. #33
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  34. #34
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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/[email protected]/

  35. #35
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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?

  36. #36
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    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.

  37. #37
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    ...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

  38. #38
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  39. #39
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  40. #40
    Subscriber Member KurtKamka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    26

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

    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

  41. #41
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtKamka View Post
    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
    Amen...

  42. #42
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

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

    Agreed. This Nikon stuff is pretty darn nice.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  43. #43
    Subscriber & Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    414

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

    It is refreshing to hear good news about a camera system and especially at the wide end - Kudos to Nikon for this. You have to bet that this cannot go unnoticed in the Canon camp and they will have to counter with something. Hopefully all of this will just be good for the users. Now Leica needs to be listening and learning here and when they release the R10 (or other) it will need to be stellar. Let's see what they can do.

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hi Mitch,

    I have used the 17-35,17-55,28-70,12-24,70-200,85/1.4 extensively on the
    d70/s,and the d200. Now have the d300 and also the 24-70.

    I have the zfs also..just to make it clear i do not find any difference between the zf 50/1.4 and the nikkor, except the price and weight.

    The one zf lens that i use a lot is the zf 100/2 makro....superb.

    I have found that on the crop sensor and for close shooting e.g street
    the 17-55 is a better performer. same goes for the 17-55 at 2.8 re: the 17-35. The 17-55 is a stellar lens ( there are some sample variations as there
    were with my 17-35 ). closed down past 5.6 the 17-35 is unbeatable for
    near and far.

    I put the 14-24 on my d300..scared me.the size and weight. besides i use
    wide for landscapes and a polarizer is a must for me or a nd. no chance right now with the 14-24.

    I am using the 24-70 on my d300..it is exquisite, blindingly fast af,close close focus capability. it is going to be a legend of a lens.

    My general combination when i travel is the 17-55 + 85/1.4 + 50/1.4
    or 28/1.4,50/1.4 and the 85/1.4

    I did most of scandinavia last year with just my d200 + 20/2.8 and the
    50/1.4

    And No, the 24-70 is not an overkill for the d300.

    regards.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    I must say that I'm dazzled by everything I read about the technology of the D300 and the two new Nikkor f/2.8 lenses (14-24mm and 24-70mm). But Ken Rockwell says that it's crazy to use these lenses for a DX camera like the D300 because you don't get what you pay for in terms of money and weight because you don't use the sharpness all the way out to the edges of a full frame that these lenses produces on an FX sensor; instead for a camera like the the D300 he recommends the 12-24mm DX and and the 18-200mm VR, but the maximum apertures of the latter two lenses are only f/4 and f/3.5-5.6.

    Do you think these lenses make sense for a D300?

    Not that I'm rushing out to get a D300 and these two f/2.8 lenses: the weight of this outfit makes me pause for thought; also I would have liked to have "real" Live View, like on small sensor cameras and on the new Olympus E420.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  45. #45
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rayyan View Post
    ...I have found that on the crop sensor and for close shooting e.g street the 17-55 is a better performer. same goes for the 17-55 at 2.8 re: the 17-35...
    Rayyan, you don't state the reason for for which you think that the 17-55mm is better than the 17-35mm — and reading Thom Hogan's reviews, which are generally quite good, I get the opposite impressions. You may be right, but can you document this in how the 17-55 is better?

    —Mitch/Tsumeb
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Mitch, having used both on a cropped sensor ( d70,d200,d300 ), the 17-55 is
    sharp at 2.8 at close quarters. It maintains this sharpness at all fl.

    The 17-35 was designed for the film system and as a wide angle for landscapes ( primarily i think ) as beyond about 5.6 it becomes stellar
    on my digital nikons. at f8 it is at its best.

    The 17-35 is not a bokeh champion either.

    OTOH, the 17-55 represents for the croppes sensors what the 28-70
    represented for film. it is primarily a pj/event lens with excellent
    resolution close and medium and falls off somewhat at infinity. f8 is no better than f5.6 ( peaking for me ).
    However for street shooting in low light the 2.8 is perfectly usable with
    very good oof areas. it maintains this upto 6.3 - 8.

    The 17-35 has very good flare control whereas the 17-55 hates bright
    light sources in the frame or strong backlighting cif 17-35.

    these nuances have however not deterred me from keeping it on my d300
    when i just to have one lens. pair it with a 85/1.4 and you can go round the
    globe...which is exactly what i have done ( 1/4 of the globe to be exact!)

    besides makes an excellent portrait/fashion lens.

    regards.

    p.s the 17-55 with its shade is a monstrous enough to frighten little kids away, besides it extends while zooming. the 17-35
    does not. Best is try both on your d300 and make the decision.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Rayyan, you don't state the reason for for which you think that the 17-55mm is better than the 17-35mm — and reading Thom Hogan's reviews, which are generally quite good, I get the opposite impressions. You may be right, but can you document this in how the 17-55 is better?

    —Mitch/Tsumeb
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Last edited by rayyan; 29th March 2008 at 05:20. Reason: forgot to add something.

  47. #47
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I have not tried the 17-35, but did own the 17-55 when I had the D200.

    The 17-55 lasted about 6 months before I sold. This could have been sample variation, however I was not impressed in the least.

    The lens was only OK on sharpness, and just never impressed me. Virtually everything I shot with it was flat, only ok on sharpness/detail, plus the wide end was distortion problematic.

    Another issue now is that it is DX only, which is a decision factor if you ever think about going FF in the future.

    Just my $.02.

    Best,

    Ray

  48. #48
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rayyan View Post
    Mitch, having used both on a cropped sensor (d70,d200,d300 ), the 17-55 is sharp at 2.8 at close quarters......Best is try both on your d300 and make the decision.
    Thanks, rayan, very informative.

    —Mitch/Tsumeb, Namibia
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  49. #49
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I had the 17-55/2.8 on a number of Nikon bodies too, and like Ray, I was very underwhelmed by this huge lens, IQ-wise. The 24–70? That's a whole other ball game. I think the 17–35 will be my next purchase, too.

  50. #50
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gromitspapa View Post
    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.
    I took your advice and my wife bought the TC 1.4 at a dealer in Washington, DC and brought it to Namibia: the trouble was that it turned out to be defective — there was something loose in it — and it did not couple everything properly so that the image through the viewfinder was so dark it looked like f/22 rather than f/4 and the mirror locked up every time I tried to take a shot. It was unfortunate because the TC would have been useful. The lesson is that it's best to try everything out at the store when buying.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •