Hi All,

What a pain... bought into the who DX concept a few years ago, sold all my wide angle glass for DX lenses... now going back to FX with the D700.

I currently still have my Nikon 35-70 2.8 lens -- it has been one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used and workhorse for me in everything from studio work to scenic stuff. Of course the angle of view will be more useful again switching back to the FX sensor.

Here are the scenarios that I am considering:

1. Keep the 35-70 and add the 17-35 2.8 lens.
2. Replace the 35-70 with the newer 24-70 2.8 AFS, add 20mm 2.8 prime for extra-wide stuff.
3. Go with older 28-70 2.8 AFS, add 20mm and 24mm primes.

My concern is with how sharp these zooms are compared to my 35-70 2.8. I don't want to sacrifice image quality, especially for scenic/fine art/outdoors photography. But I also love the fact that my 35-70 is much lighter in weight than the current alternatives (it's my lightest 2.8 zoom by far).

And overall, option #3 might weigh more overall in my backpack, rendering it less desirable for hiking, so I'm sort of thinking option #2 is my best choice since the AFS lenses tend to focus faster than my 35-70, which is an older D lens. But then it's never really been an issue for me, so maybe option #1 IS best... but only if the 17-35 is going to be at least as sharp as the 20 and 24mm primes.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Scott

Scott--This is indeed a toughie and one of the reasons I'm holding out with my D300s instead of breaking down and buying a D700 like I should:-) [Huge caveat is that most of my "money" photography is with telephoto lenses where the DX has some nice advantages and I don't have to sweat that my 18-200 isn't quite as awesome as a kit of 3 f2.8 zooms would be:-)]

That said, I have used the 14mm, 20mm, 17-35, 28-70 and the new 24-70 as well as the new 14-24 pretty extensively (the former four I owned for many years and the later two I have borrowed from NPS for a couple extended trips with a D3).

The 24-70 is tack sharp & fast. A major reason they came out with it was concern that the 28-70, while fine for film & DX would vignette on FX, so I'd be concerned about the same thing with your 35-70 and would be prepared to 'upgrade' if you don't like the results. For the same reason I'd be careful about investing in the 28-70 for FX. Sometimes the differences are very subtle and you might not even care but I do think there will be differences.

I think the original 17-35 may have had similar vignetting concerns with FX, as they updated the design in 2006.

I found the 24-70 seemed very susceptible to lens flare, FWIW. I don't know if that was because I had an FX sensor or something about the design for low light fall off that made it worse, but I sure noticed it a lot when photographing in Asia.

Sort of a bummer that the f2.8 wide zooms aren't VR, although not a deal breaker.

14-24 doesn't fit lens filters, which is a problem for some folks.

20mm prime is (was?) one of my favorites too, but there again I'd be nervous about FX performance until you have a chance to try it.

NPS can hopefully loan you one or two of the lenses to test out?

So you can probably sense that I'm torn on what I'd do if/when I get a D700. Let us know what you decide and how it works out!--David

I read on Ken Rockwell's site that he raves about the sharpness of the 24-70 and that he found it to be the sharpest ever of nikon's "normal" range zooms. But yikes -- it's even heavier than the 28-70, which is like carrying TWO 35-70s :-p.

I love the 12-24 DX on my D300, but can't escape the merits of the D700 -- not just the extra stop at the high end ISO, but it doesn't slow down processing 14-bit NEFs like the D300. But I mostly shot it in the 20-30mm range for scenic stuff, so I'm not wowed by Nikon's new 14-24 -- especially since I can't even put a polarizer on it.

I hadn't considered taking advantage of my NPS membership to test a few of the lenses out. Maybe I'll just take advantage of the B&H Photo 7-day lens test program since I'm local to that store ;-).

I spent years just carrying a 24mm, 50mm, and a tele zoom and was happy. Why'd they have to go and make all these zooms? :-p

For what it's worth, I have the 24-70 f2.8 and find it to be very good but not "stellar" with regard to performance. It is also just about my least used lens. I do like it, and it's way better than the 24-85 and similar lenses I've used previously. But it doesn't come close to matching my 17-35mm f2.8 which is by far the best lens I've ever used (I haven't shot other than telephoto primes with digital but I can't imagine wide primes being any better than the 17-35). It's been a long time since I owned a 35-70 f2.8, and I was shooting film then, but I remember it being an extremely sharp lens as well. Never did use the 28-70 f2.8 but always heard great reviews about it.

Thanks Weldon.

My gut is telling me to keep the 35-70 2.8 and get the 17-35 2.8.

Those two lenses and my 70-300 4.5/5.6 VR will make a totally manageable backpack outfit weight-wise (I have the 70-200 2.8 VR for my non-hiking-related telephoto needs).

Howdy Scott,

I have and use as one of my primary lenses the 28-70 2.8 AFS. It gets used on my full frame Kodak 14nx and on my sports bodies D1x and D2h. It is a very good piece of glass that weighs a ton and half.

Besides its weight it has another issue that is its ability to gather dirt in the interior parts. It is expensive to have worked on and my last bill from Nikon Service for cleaning the beast was $475.00 plus the shipping. That moving lens assembly on the front primary works like an accordion to draw in dirt and dust and sand. I am looking for a replacement myself for my sports work.

Let us know what you end up with and how you like it. Especially for the full frame work.

$475. Ouch. I dropped my 12-24 in Texas bending the front and it was only $241. Maybe I should just think of the repair as a thorough cleaning?--David

I'm going to start out picking up the 17-35 2.8 this week along with the D700 (just waiting another day for my birthday and one or two remaining B&H gift cards I haven't received yet) :-p. Assuming there's no vignetting with either this or my trusty 35-70 2.8, I'll be thrilled. I will provide a full report as soon as possible.

Scott

p.s. I have a nikon 12-24 4.0 DX on eBay if anyone needs one for their DX camera -- just search for user kahnman7.

Scott,
You shouldn't see any significant vignetting with the 17-35 on the D700 - the only time I've had a problem was when I forgot and stacked two filters. You will see some edge darkening at wider apertures and focal lengths with the 17-35, as with many other lenses, but the D700 built-in vignette control does a really great job of handling it if you have it turned on. With regard to the D700, I suggest checking the framing accuracy first off when you get your body. The D700 viewfinder doesn't show the full image area (96%, I think) and the view may not be centered as you think it should be. Mine, interestingly, was pretty well centered but not quite level to the actual image. If you always have to crop to correct for mis-alignment then you'd be losing some of those 12 megapixels - so it's good to know how it actually frames so you can compensate if needed or, if it's unacceptably bad, you can exchange bodies or have it corrected. Good news is that the LCD is pretty accurate, though sometimes hard to see. This is not to knock a great camera though.

Weldon, dumb question but does the vignette control in the camera operate on NEFs or is it "just" a flag that lets Capture know to set the Vignette control when the image is processed?--David