getting nikon system

[ZerocoolAstra]

We've sorta gone off-topic from the question by kriegsketten.
The main gist of the discussion was f/2.8 vs f/4 with VR.

I am in no way stating that the 14-24 is somehow inferior... far from it. Based on professional reviews this is THE lens... unfortunately it also comes with THE price-tag... :bsmilie:
and you have to be real careful with it coz it doesn't have a normal lens cap
and you can't mount filters
and for the kind of uses most people use this for, the f/2.8 is unnecessary.

If I was on an FX system, and they made an ultra-wide which was just as sharp as the 'legendary' 14-24, with a smaller aperture hence making it cheaper and lighter, and added in VR to boot, I'd go for that.... WAIT, they DO make such a lens! The 16-35 f/4 VR!!!

 

[kriegsketten]

We've sorta gone off-topic from the question by kriegsketten.
The main gist of the discussion was f/2.8 vs f/4 with VR.

Oooooooi! My fault again? :embrass:......

Ta-ta....:vhappy: Dum-di-dum....:vhappy: Ta-ta!....

Anyway, I didn't know that the VR could do so much for smaller aperture lenses Ken R says not 4 stops but at least 1 to 2, are we able to verify that?

Gotta thank TS for bringing up the post and your discussion about it - otherwise I'd have given this f/4 a complete miss!

 

[Numnumball]

Hmm.. So the 20mm is a no go? I would like to know how the 20mm performs compared to the 16-35. Have you had any experience on these lens? Most preferbly on a FX body.

Not necesarily a no go.. several other decision making criteria u need to take into consideration as well.. U lose the flexibility of zoom (which is essential to me in landscape photography) in prime but offset by the size and price. Ur call.. Optical Quality 16-35 wins hands down..

 

[Numnumball]

i have seen and heard the distortion is quite bad at 18mm and its unable to be fully corrected in PS. hows your experience with it?

I tried this lens before as well.. from my personal experience, its worse than 17-35 but slightly as bad than 16-35.. Correction still can be done Post but more effort throw in..

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

heck... Nikon should make a 16-24mm f/5.6VR for S$700.... :bsmilie: fat hope eh?

 

[Numnumball]

We've sorta gone off-topic from the question by kriegsketten.
The main gist of the discussion was f/2.8 vs f/4 with VR.

I am in no way stating that the 14-24 is somehow inferior... far from it. Based on professional reviews this is THE lens... unfortunately it also comes with THE price-tag... :bsmilie:
and you have to be real careful with it coz it doesn't have a normal lens cap
and you can't mount filters
and for the kind of uses most people use this for, the f/2.8 is unnecessary.

If I was on an FX system, and they made an ultra-wide which was just as sharp as the 'legendary' 14-24, with a smaller aperture hence making it cheaper and lighter, and added in VR to boot, I'd go for that.... WAIT, they DO make such a lens! The 16-35 f/4 VR!!!

Bro, 14-24 is never inferior, its phenomenally good, and well worth every penny u pay off if u know how to use it.. The main reason its being put off by some is becos of its enormous size and weight, follow by the inability to mount on creative filters (though Lee/Cokin coming up with specialised adapter holders for this baby, my guess it will hovers in the USD400-600 region), its not for the timid who's afraid the lens might get knocked on or scratch every single minute.. And a impractial zoom which limits its versatility.

Plus points is u get 2mm more (wider fov) and barrel distortion is the least of all among current in production UWAs. Optical quality is among one of the best UWA can offer (if not the best) i had seen in recent years. :thumbsup:

Tat said.. 16-35 Vr rival 14-24 really well in terms of optical quality. Offset by an inferior built (plastic quality), 1 stop less.

 

[Numnumball]

heck... Nikon should make a 16-24mm f/5.6VR for S$700.... :bsmilie: fat hope eh?

U wait long long.. Tat will only happen when FX cam is afforadable at DX rate.. say in another 5 years time?? .. :sweat::bsmilie:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

U wait long long.. Tat will only happen when FX cam is afforadable at DX rate.. say in another 5 years time?? .. :sweat::bsmilie:

5 years is a looooong time.... willing to stake your reputation on it?

The way things are developing, I'm unwilling to wager any $... but affordable FX may be closer than we all think.... depending on their marketing departments, of course!

 

[iankwa]

i have seen and heard the distortion is quite bad at 18mm and its unable to be fully corrected in PS. hows your experience with it?

Hi so far my usage I don't have to correct in PS.
Here is some samples taken at 18mm

Sorry I do not have much samples

 

[iankwa]

 

[Welly Agus]

I've a feeling that you're putting the priority of the cam body way ahead of the lenses... Why not consider a DX body first? Get a D90 and start it off with a 14-24 f/2.8! (first of the trinity - superb for the FX) When the time is right, sell off the D90 to fund the purchase of the D700... (or the replacement model)

Total cost: $4200 (conservative)
14-24mm f/2.8 : 2400
85mm f/1.8 : 600
D90: 1200

Your option(A): $5200 (conservative)
16-35mm f/4: 1800
D700: 3400

Your option(B): $4300 (conservative)
20mm f/2.8: 900
D700: 3400

With a D90, you would already have TWO very good FX lenses in the arsenal (to start with)! Your lenses investment is sealed solid to last for many years!

I'm very happy with my D700, 14-24 f2,8, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 F2,8 and my fix lens ex my old cam 50 f 1,4. the result is amazing. Also got micro 105 mm surely good enough and you may try and ask around it should covered most event with that configuration. My aim to get D3S soon.

 

[robi2000]

seldom post, but seems like personally i would take some step by step measure to get the expected lens since the stake is quite high ($$$$)

1. get a new D700 body
2. look around those people/company who rent nikon lens
3. check whether they have the lenses you are in doubt with, including other prime lens (if needed)
4. rent from them for a period of time
5. decide after that with the budget you have

this way,you will not loose your time and money for something you can't gauge without trying.

people experience would be different, what people see nice/good/excellent, might not be the same or achievable by us due to different skillset/expectation.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I'm very happy with my D700, 14-24 f2,8, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 F2,8 and my fix lens ex my old cam 50 f 1,4. the result is amazing. Also got micro 105 mm surely good enough and you may try and ask around it should covered most event with that configuration. My aim to get D3S soon.

You certainly have a nice equipment list. Care to share some of your amazing photos?

 

[kriegsketten]

You certainly have a nice equipment list. Care to share some of your amazing photos?

:bsmilie: Man, you're riot!

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

:bsmilie: Man, you're riot!

hehehehe... well, the proof is in the pudding, wouldn't you agree?

 

[kriegsketten]

hehehehe... well, the proof is in the pudding, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, abso-duper-lutely! :bsmilie: