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

Thanks for the heads-up, Weldon. I just ordered my D700 and will have it on Monday.

Unfortunately it's only a 90% viewfinder in the D700... very lame on Nikon's part (and clever marketing to hide this detail). 95% horizontal and 95% vertical = 90% view coverage, though it should be centered. I'll definitely look to make sure it is accurate. The D3 isn't worth the difference over the D700 just for the 100% view (since I don't need the faster FPS), as much as I loved the 100% view in my D2x.

For those who are curious, the viewfinder coverage is reduced because with the sensor-cleaning technology and the built-in flash, there just wasn't enough room to make this all fit inside the prism area.

Scott--I do think that you've pointed out of those "little things" that separate different classes of camera. The trade-off between 100% and sensor cleaning & pop-up flash is an excellent example. Too often people see the resolution and maybe fps on a camera and don't look past that so they can't understand why more expensive cameras are in fact more expensive:-)

FWIW, for me too if I do spend my own pennies on a full frame it'll be the D700 for the same reasons you list.

One nice surprise about the D300 for me has been that with the vertical grip the 8fps I get makes me feel pretty good. (I don't recall whether it is the same on the D700). Sure I miss the 9+ fps of the D3 but realistically the difference is small enough for what I do (no one is paying me the huge bucks to capture the perfect moment at an NBA game:-) that I'm just fine with my "8".

--David

Now I have learned something again on this forum. I was prepared to buy the D700 after many months of saving my pennies but the thread in this posting regarding frame rate and viewfinder view has thrown me back to the savings department for a D3.

Another factor involved is the shutter expectancy life with the D3. I have been awarded the position of authorized photographer at a new, very large, very popular motorsports raceway. My frames per day has increased to about 2000 and my days a week have increased from 3 to 5. That is roughly 10,000 frames a week. My previous count was 10,000 a month.

Wish me luck on this new venture. My web statistics show a 5 fold increase in unique visitors after the first weekend at the new venue. Looks like I have a lot of new clients to gear my marketing towards.

Anyone shooting the D3 in dusty conditions? I sure wish Nikon made lenses that were more airtight. My lens internal clean and lube bills are getting stupid.

Rick--First, congratulations on your new role. That sounds like a real boost for your business!

Second, I shot with the D3 for a month on safari in Africa and for a month in Southeast Asia during the dry season. I was actually very surprised how little trouble I had with dust either time. I didn't change lenses a ton (200-400 stayed on most of the time in Africa and 24-70 in Asia), but I was still pretty happy. Don't know what to attribute it to.--David

I've been playing around with the D700 now -- haven't had a client shoot. But here's my thought... I'm most likely going to return it and pick up a D3. Why?

1. Viewfinder. I can't go back from 100% coverage to 90%. For studio work it's not a real issue, but for my scenic fine art stuff, you're basically framing a shot looking at a 10.89 MP scene and hoping that maybe you have nice stuff in the remaining 1.21 MP of space. Why throw away those pixels? Since I had a D2x and D1x before, I am perfectly comfortably using sensor swabs to clean my sensor... sure the self-cleaning is nice, but not essential. Also, those pro-series viewfinders are LARGER and BRIGHTER. The D700 viewfinder is larger than the D300 was, but I think it's dimmer.

2. With my MB-D10 grip on the D700, it's roughly the same weight as the D3 but a little taller.

There are a handful of tiny extras that the D3 adds that aren't really essential to me, but the battery is of course much better, and being able to load two CF cards in the camera is nice for a long trip/big shoot.

Yes, there's a price tag difference... so I'll just do a few extra shoots to cover it.

Scott--I concur on the viewfinder. I don't find the one on the D700 as bright as I remember the one on the D3 being.

Interesting on the 90% though. There is actually one potential advantage of the 90% which is that with VR (especially Active VR) it is hard to control the precise framing of the scene so instead of having to remember to frame loosely the camera more or less does it for you. But of course I'd rather have my 100% back for sure.

Similarly the battery is a pro/con issue for me. Now that my "other" camera is a D300 I like having the same battery in both cameras. If I tried to use a D3+D300 I'd need both battery systems & both chargers (or I could do what some friends do and rely on the D3 batteries in the D300 vertical grip).

I also like that I can use the D700 without the vertical grip for travel photography when it is convenient.

I think I'd feel the same way you do though if I had your client base & shooting situations. Nice that Nikon offers so many alternatives!--David

I thought the D700 would make more sense for the backpack, but those are the locations where I really need the 100% coverage more than in my studio, plus that's where you'd want the better battery life :-p.

My first thought with the D700 was that I received a broken one, the viewfinder was so dark compared to the D300 or D3. Maybe it is!

Vignetting is a problem I'm definitely seeing. Forget about a lens hood on my 35-70 2.8 -- not happening :-p. But I had almost forgotten what a "normal" perspective looked like through a camera. It's more than just a crop factor, you know :-).

I'm certainly conflicted on this. Basically, Nikon's charging way too much for the D3 given that there is a D700. It should only be $1k more new -- not $2k. Or really, they should have given the D700 a 100% view and left out the sensor cleaning or the pop-up flash. I used to be really excited about that flash for my D300, but with the 700, high ISO is so good that for times you leave a flash home, you can just shoot at 1600 and have nice results.

Scott,

Your most recent post regarding trading the d700 for the d3 only has solidified my previous thoughts and final decision that I would continue to save for the d3 over the d700.

Sorry you had to be the guinea pig but your trials have helped to eliminate my trepidations.

No problem. I'm still within the time period for returning the D700.

Scott--Funny you should mention about the D700 viewfinder being dark. When I first got mine I threw a lens on it before I even stuck a battery in. Then I looked through it and almost paniced. It was _really dark_.

It was so weird though that I figured maybe somehow the camera not having a battery had left/caused the lens to be partially closed (e.g. stopped down), and sure enough some fiddling & a battery got things back to normal.

What's interesting is that I don't remember ever having that happen before in all the times I've put lenses on cameras--I'm sure many times with no battery. Maybe it has something to do with LiveView?

In any case, no clue if what you might be seeing is in any way related, but it was _really dark_ when it happened!--David

Before dropping a bunch of money on the new 24-70 for my D700, I thought I should give my older "D" lenses a fair shot at the job.

The first task was evaluating them against each other. I have the 24-85 "G" version and the 24-85 f2.8/4 pseudo-macro.

The G lens is a little smaller and doesn't have the macro mode (I've shot a magazine cover & a number of other saleable images from only a few inches away with that macro mode--so it is nothing to sneeze out).

Being lazy I'm not willing to run a full battery of tests, but I got out today's newspaper and put up a target. Both lenses were very similar in overall sharpness with the tiny, tiny edge going to the faster one.

The good news is that both seem to hold sharpness well even near the edges and I could read the fine print in the Fry's ad which is always a good sign.

Of course I don't have a 24-70 sitting around to compare with, so I used my 70-200f/2.8 AF-S. It definitely got the slight edge--allowing me not just to read the Fry's fine print but to actually understand it:-) But the difference was definitely not major.

So I'm more informed but just as conflicted as before I ran the tests, although I am completely briefed on the latest camcorder specials in our town now.

--David

I have been shooting with the D700 since it came out. I have two. I don't find the viewfinder dark. I have always shot loose for portraits so I can crop a little, so that wasn't a problem. When I am shooting tight and close and need to fill up the image, I rely on the LCD to show me what I have. I have one vertical grip when I need it, but I like the lighter body since I have had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands from a life time of carrying a Hasselblad.
I think using a camera is more about how you shoot than anything. I like the full frame and all my lens look like the film days. That's was the reason for the D700 (and higher usable ISO). I had the D300 before that and my clients and I were happy with the images.
I think the shutter life may not be a big deal with cameras changing so often, I buy a new model before I can wear the shutter out. It all depends on how you shoot.
The thing I want most is a square format Nikon.

Billy--I certainly agree that it comes down to how and what you shoot. In my case I can see the conflict at the long end. The extra 50% on focal length matters when you start to run out of lens.

So I'm starting to rethink things a little. Instead of thinking of it as a "minus" to have one FX and one DX, maybe it's more like having a TC you can use on your lens, so that I can get the reach I need for certain wildlife situations when I have enough light (using D300/DX), but get the bump in pure image quality and low light performance (with D700/FX) when I have enough lens.

Just like a TC there is a tradeoff.--David

Yeah -- that was weird. I felt like my D300 viewfinder was brighter, although the D700 viewfinder was larger.

I just made my return of the D700 today and got the D3, though it won't be here until Tuesday (when you live in NJ, you go into NYC to B&H to buy stuff, but have them ship it so you avoid sales tax).

Funny, after spending the past year with a D300, I had almost forgotten how much better the pro bodies feel (I was in the D2x before), and of course the huge viewfinder. Hopefully the D3 will last two+ years before Nikon releases something else that makes me want something more. :-p

Oh... I decided to be practical with my money and pick up the D3 as a Nikon factory refurbished one... $3600 from B&H, comes with a 3 month warranty from Nikon USA (vs. 1 year and $4350 for new), in box with all the accessories and a new battery. The full new price was a bit steep. In handling the refurbished unit, I couldn't tell it apart from a new one. They don't always advertise that they have factory refurbs -- call their used dept. on the phone.

Also Cameta Camera from NY sells many Nikon refurbs -- they're based out on Long Island and given their volume I think they must have a special deal with Nikon USA just a few towns away from them for all the refurbs they can handle. I've had good dealings with them (bought one refurbished Nikon lens), and of course Robert's Imaging in Indianapolis for new Nikon gear (most of my Nikon bodies).

Scott

Scott--Congrats. I'm sure you'll love the camera. Let us know how the refurb works out. The D3 has had such a good track record so far that likely you'll be just fine. Some of the early model pro digital bodies (the D1X comes to mind) were kind of trouble prone and I would have been nervous about a refurb but the newer ones have been pretty solid.--David

I use Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on my Sigma D700 and I'm fairly happy. Maybe not as sharp as Nikon's latest, but it's cheap (used) and light enough to use as a walk-around lens

Finally got to do some test shots with the D3 and the 17-35 28 AF-S. NICE!!!
The D3 is definitely a different animal than the D700, with some unique features, but mainly the ergonomics and viewfinder are the biggest differences.

The Nikon refurbished D3 looks and feels like brand new, so that was a wise way to go with the purchase. The 17-35 is heavy, but not as heavy or large as the new 24-70 2.8 or the new 14-24 (which stupidly can't use filters), and the overall collection in my backpack ends up weighing about the same as what I used to pack with my D2x and some DX lenses. Now I need to get out to a national park and make some art. :-)

Scott,
I recently rented a 14-24 for project and it is a great lens - if you have need of a 14mm, I like it better than the straight 14mm 2.8 lenses I've tried. But it is a very limited use lens for me so I can't really see myself owning one. I whole-heartedly agree about the filtration, too. Big problem was, even though I had the 14-24, I still wanted to bring the 17-35 because I knew I might want to polarize a wide shot. Had to resort to some creative packing to fit everything in my bag.

For those who might say to just use ColorEfx or other digital filters, you can't really remove reflections from water with those digital tools - which is my biggest use if a polarizer.

Weldon & Scott -- First, to state what is probably obvious to you guys but might not be to everyone, it's not like Nikon made the 14-24 filter-hostile just to piss people off. That's a really tough zoom to build for a full frame camera. I don't recall there being anything quite like it that worked with full frame digital previously. So I guess the question is whether that extra wide is worth the hassle of lack of filtration (if someone knows of an alternative lens that works as well on the D3/X & D700 let us know!)

That said, yeah, it bugged me too when I used one. I was nervous just having a front element sticking out like that all the time I couldn't put a protective filter on, but the 14f/2.8 had the same issue as I recal.

Second, Amen to Weldon's point about polarization. Like Infrared there is no way to post-process images to do what a polarizer does. Either one can be 'faked' up to a point with software, but they can't actually ever "un-send" those extra photons. There isn't really a simple digital darkroom fix for not getting it right in the field in those cases.--David

Half the time I use a polarizer when a ND filter may have sufficed, but most of my scenic stuff involves water -- I think it's safe to say that the people who say to apply a polarizer filter in post processing really just don't know photography.

So I took my D3 to the zoo today to get some real-world testing. This test says as much about the camera's image quality as it does about the lens tested: my Nikon 70-300 4.5/5.6 AF-S VR. Yes, I also own the 70-200 2.8 VR, but that's not going on a hike or a casual day trip.

I think all lens tests should include "the peacock test" :-p -- check out these two handheld shots at ISO 400 with the D3 for the sharpness, color, and bokeh. I have done NOTHING in post processing. Process: They were shot RAW with the camera color settings set to Vivid, opened in Aperture, exported to TIFF (defaults), in Photoshop I just added my copyright, resized the image (smaller for your benefit), and saved as JPG. I did not apply any sharpening or make any modifications to the color. Suffice to say I'm impressed with the camera :-).

http://www.scottkahn.com/sample

Scott

Scott--Yes, indeed awesome. Makes me wonder why they don't just ship a peacock with each body so everyone can get instant gratification!

Nice to see the 70-300 doing so well also. Until Nikon does something to update or replace the 80-400 the 70-300 is really the only budget alternative at the long/mid-range from Nikon (although for those willing to use another brand I have been impressed with the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500, but they are both much bigger and heavier than the 70-300).

--David

That would be something -- "We're so convinced of Nikon Total Imaging Quality that for a limited time, we're including a free peacock with every f/2.8 pro lens. And if you purchase two or more pro lenses, we'll also send you a small marsupial."

:-)

I don't know what I was more impressed with -- the 70-300 sharpness or the fact that shooting at ISO 400 did nothing to lessen the image quality. It's odd for Nikon to still have the 80-400 in the lens lineup. You're right, David... that is a lens that seems in need of a replacement. Especially now that FX is obviously where Nikon is going. Heck, I may actually get a Nikon teleconverter for the 70-200 2.8. I don't know if they would work with the slower lens.

Scott

Scott--If you're impressed by the D3 at 400 "you ain't seen nothing yet." Keep cranking the dial, as you've hardly started!

Yes, I've complained to Nikon a few times about the 80-400, most recently at PMA. But they refuse to say anything firm about an update of any type, so we've added a Sigma 120-400 to our safari loaner pool and it has been a smash hit. Last trip 3 folks with 80-400 lenses coming in ordered Sigmas before the trip was over.

Their 150-500 is slightly slower but for anyone who does a lot of bird photography and doesn't need the speed it's a good option also.

On TC, a 1.4 or even 1.7 Nikon will work great with your 70-200. It isn't worth (IMO) messing with TCs on any of the slower lenses. They lose speed, AF, and quality. These days it's simpler and provides a better image to crop in PS than mess with a TC on anything other than an f2/2.8/4 lens (again IMO).

--David

David and Weldon,

Wow! Just did a client/event shoot the other day featuring a performance from Peter Yarrow (Peter Paul & Mary). It was at an industry trade show, mix of fluorescent lighting and random booth lighting, etc...

Shot JPGs with the D3 and the 17-35 2.8 lens. Wow. Half the time I didn't even shoot with flash! I actually cranked it up to ISO 1200 and shot totally usable images that seemed more like my old 400 ISO stuff -- no problem cropping them, either.

Using flash with ISO 500-600 kept things super sharp and with very little drain on my SB-800. Both the camera and the wide zoom really exceeded my expectations. Next week I'll get to do some fine art shooting with it up in NH, but the shoot this week instantly re-affirmed for me the merits of the pro body. It just handles "better" than the prosumer bodies.

Scott--Awesome that everything worked so well. I'll second the amazing low ISO of the FX sensor for sure. I haven't tried it with the 17-35f/2.8 though but sounds like a winning combo from your write-up.--David

Yeah. It's interesting reacquainting myself with the FX perspective after 8-10 years of shooting DX. But the 17-35 2.8 looks fantastic so far. I'll let you know how it works on the scenic stuff next week.

I had a 17-35 and traded it back in for the 28-70 AFS f/2.8.
It was as sharp but too close for my Event work on a D1.
In 10 years this lense has never needed any work including cleaning.

While everyone else seems to be making up for loosing the DX 1.5 crop with tele lenses,
surprising to me, I am going wider now that I have a D3.
I sold my 200-400 and 300-800 and just got a 14-24 AFS f/2.8
I love it for all kinds of shots, but especially landscape.
The lack of filters is no problem for me as I have never scratched one and quit using shades and a polarizer years ago.