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