Does Anyone Have This Lens?

[Echosphere]

.....good to see, Echosphere, thanks....do you compare and test Nikon Lenses for the university?....if so, do you think the picture quality with any AF Nikon zoom would be "as good" as AF Nikon fixed-lenses?....

In general, for comparative price/quality zooms these days are just as good or better than fixed lens.

Zooms got a bad wrap for a long time due to their image quality and crappy minimum f stop. These days with technology/computer CAD and new mineral lens coating, most of those issues have disappeared.

Mainly, the issue revolved around the fact that zooms need to utilize more glass elements, meaning, more physical pieces of glass in the lens. While a fixed lens might just have one or two, zooms could have up to 6 or more pieces of glass. Each piece of glass can lessen the image quality especially if they are not spaced right or have warped curvatures. Each of those imperfections would be magnified on the next piece of glass and so on.

Purists today, still like fixed lens for that reason, less pieces of glass (or "filters") for light to travel to the sensor/film. But with the tech today, that isn't so much an issue and zooms are now used by pro the world over.

Zooms generally, due to their design, have crappier minimum f stops compared to fixed lens. This used to be an issue with film cameras where most folks used 100 ISO/ASA speed slide film for landscape and shooting at dusk was a pain. Now, digital cameras have excellent high ISO sensitivity so f stops aren't as much as an issue.

I still prefer fixed lens, especially a 50mm 1.4 f stop on FX cameras. Why? Because zooms (for landscape shots) make you lazy. You can just stand there and zoom in and out. Fixed lens MAKE you get off the path, get closer get farther to get the perfect shot. Nearly all my favorite shots were when I got off the path and found a new perspective forced by the fixed lens. Though, if you shoot wildlife, a zoom many times is the only option, either you can't close enough to the subject before they get spooked or you only have a few seconds before they disappear.

 

[julian_photo]

I think Echosphere and i were trying to make the same point when i was talking about cropping. His was just made it more clear than i. I was going off the assumption you were cropping the scaling up to make the same sized print. If i was buying an FX body right now i'd go d700. I sounds like you're serious about your photography but you may not need all the features of the D3/S. For the most part you'll get the same image quality and the D700 will weight a bit less if thats a concern. Also its cheap so you can invest in the glass.

In terms of prime vs zoom lenses its up to you. Primes are nice because they tend to be faster i.e. F1.8 vs F2.8 so thats nice and can be sharper. That said a lot of pros out there shoot zooms and don't complain about their sharpness at all.

 

[mikeybc]

Your buying a body now?? Get the D-700, better High iso performance than DX has to offer. Though the 24-70 you intend to buy will have less range than a 17-55 on a DX body (25-82mm)

 

[Echosphere]

I think Echosphere and i were trying to make the same point when i was talking about cropping. His was just made it more clear than i. I was going off the assumption you were cropping the scaling up to make the same sized print. If i was buying an FX body right now i'd go d700. I sounds like you're serious about your photography but you may not need all the features of the D3/S. For the most part you'll get the same image quality and the D700 will weight a bit less if thats a concern. Also its cheap so you can invest in the glass.

In terms of prime vs zoom lenses its up to you. Primes are nice because they tend to be faster i.e. F1.8 vs F2.8 so thats nice and can be sharper. That said a lot of pros out there shoot zooms and don't complain about their sharpness at all.

DOH! I see what you are saying now Julian, and you are 100% correct! You WOULD lose image quality by cropping that way. Sorry, let me strike my earlier comment from the record....

Zooms got especially bad reviews in the early days as they were usually crap in sharpness and saturation/contrast at the outer edges so much so that that was the first thing magazines would focus on in their reviews.

Today, most of the wide angle and normal angle zoom lenses are comparable in sharpness and saturation/contrast, even in the outer edges compared to fixed (prime) lenses. Sometimes even surpassing fixed lens in quality due to the fact that you collecting more light and the multiple lens elements can actually "boost" resolution collection.

One of the things that DX/APS size sensors did was revolutionize wide angle lens technology in the past decade. Prior, a 10mm - 30mm non-fisheye zooms lens was unheard of, let alone at the price points we see today. It is simply amazing the plethora of fixed and zoom wide angle lens on the market today and at their price points. It was such a niche market and everyone seemed to want telephoto that at one point Nikon only sold 3 consumer lens below 35mm during the very late nineties. At that time extreme wide angle was mostly geared toward architectural and bio-med sciences. I love wide angle and thus have begrudgingly hailed our new DX overlords, for the time being...

Though, I think Julian is quite true when it comes to telephoto lenses, even today. If you compare a fixed prime 300mm lens to a 100-300 zoom lens, the fixed prime lens would kick arse in sharpness and saturation/contrast and not just at the edges, but all around. BUT a telephoto zoom lens of 100-300 is so convenient, that pro journalists have for awhile now bowed down and accepted it as a needful trade off.

Your buying a body now?? Get the D-700, better High iso performance than DX has to offer. Though the 24-70 you intend to buy will have less range than a 17-55 on a DX body (25-82mm)

Both Mikey and Julian are absolutely right on the D700 compared to the D3 models. I also don't doubt that the D700 has a better chip processor for better image quality.
What do you get for the extra money you spend on the D3 as compared to the D700? Battlefield worthiness. Literally. Like the F4S (that admit I owned and bought because it was bad ass, plus I liked the controls on top which was a mix of manual and automatic, it could still shoot if the batteries died...) the D3 was designed for combat situations and extreme weather and temperature conditions. From the freezing Arctic, to Mt. Everest to the sweltering humidity of the amazon and sandstorms of Iraq, it was built like a tank. 80% of amateur photographers will never utilize all the purposes of the D3 as compared to the D700. It's just status and bragging rights. Yeah it's a penis thing.

The D700 took all the best tech and FX sensor from the D3 and made it more affordable to the masses by taking out the magnesium/titanium/krypton alloy that is un-needed by 80% of most serious amateur photographers. Meaning, it was designed for YOU! Plus they beefed up and tweaked the processor for better shots. Tech moves on and improves. Oddly, nowadays more expensive does not mean better image quality btw.

Buy the D700 and then let us drool over your shots you post! :thmbsp:

 

[mulester7]

.....krypton?....good stuff, EchoSphere, you've been around the block....Julian and Mikey as well....did DPastern fall off the wagon? .....

 

[pioneervato]

.....krypton?....good stuff, EchoSphere, you've been around the block....Julian and Mikey as well....did DPastern fall off the wagon? .....

What am I?? Chopped liver???

 

[old_tv_nut]

... but, elegant...

 

[mikeybc]

The old 12 MP D3 and the D700 are pretty close image wise, the D3 has the built in grip...both are magnesium alloy as is the D-300 and D-200, D3 is sealed up a bit better though. The MB-D10 battery grip will fit the D-700 and D-300 and is also made of magnesium alloy just like the bodies and will provide much better balance with those big metal zooms your looking at. If I won the lottery I'd be all over the D3s...ISO 102,400 images that compare to a D-300 @ ISO 6400, useable anyway for an emergency to make a 4X6 print.

 

[Echosphere]

The old 12 MP D3 and the D700 are pretty close image wise, the D3 has the built in grip...both are magnesium alloy as is the D-300 and D-200, D3 is sealed up a bit better though. The MB-D10 battery grip will fit the D-700 and D-300 and is also made of magnesium alloy just like the bodies and will provide much better balance with those big metal zooms your looking at. If I won the lottery I'd be all over the D3s...ISO 102,400 images that compare to a D-300 @ ISO 6400, useable anyway for an emergency to make a 4X6 print.

Woops! I got carried away I think with my last post.... Listen to Mikey... Still bang for buck, the D700 is a better buy for you. Also, you have the choice of the vertical grip or not, which you don't have with the D3. Allowing you to be a bit more incognito or less a theft target, say in NYC.

Yes, just EXACTLY as PioneerVato WAS THE FIRST ONE TO MENTION ON THIS THREAD get the D700! (I actually took the time to re-read all of it to make sure he got the props) :thmbsp:

To be honest, and annoying at the same time, I truly think that a great backpack and a sturdy lightweight tripod are nearly almost as important, as your body and lenses. Think of them as the seasoning/marinade to your Argentinian Prime Rib. A well made, well organized backpack can mean the difference between a wet or damaged gear and also that split second shot because you can't unzip or find it all in time to get it.
Meaning it's a system, balance out your costs across the spectrum. You can have the greatest camera in the world, but if you can't get to it, or it get's damaged, you ain't got squat at the end of the hike/touring day.

 

[mikeybc]

I always use the grip, mainly for comfort and occasionally to get that extra 2fps if I'm trying to get that perfect action shot....it really is nice to loose the grip though like Echosphere said. It reduces the weight and you don't stick out so much in a crowd...especially if you get rid of the OEM strap.

 

[Echosphere]

So true... While the OEM strap is decently made. Lose it. Makes you look like a tourist and a bright neon sign to thieves. Reminds me of guys who used to walk around in Ferrari leather jackets... The best photographers are the ones that blend into the background... unless you're chasing the ladies, and even then....

Plus, I've found the neoprene straps are some of the most comfortable and usually much better made than the OEM ones with NIKON screaming all over it. You can put a lot of wear on a strap, find the best one. Like OEM RCA IC's, lose em and get better quality.

I remember in Berlin when I first got my F100 I only had the OEM Nikon strap on the first day of a festival. Got some funny looks while sporting the vertical grip and massive zoom lens. Just happened to find a cool vintage strap there at a stand and put it on. I noticed after that people didn't stare as much and a few folks would wanted to chat about the F100 (it was brand new then). So, while not scientifically proven, I still won't wear an OEM Nikon strap again.

 

[mulester7]

What am I?? Chopped liver???

.....hey, I whistled through my teeth twice....bs....Jesse, I don't think it's possible to get the "same" picture-quality from "any" zoom that's as good as the 3 or 4 fixed lenses it replaces....what do

you think about that?....

 

[HandyHamlet]

I think that unless you upgrade your current image processing/printing system to a multi-million dollar Ad agency picture quality between new zooms and fixed lenses is a mute point.

 

[pioneervato]

IMO, fixed focal length lenses set the standard a long time ago and are hard to beat. I have shot enough with both zoom and fixed to know but at the same time the new generation of zooms being produced are far from being slouches their early ancestors were.

When it comes to the quality that Nikon and Canon are well known for there will always be room for a high quality zoom in my camera bag and the one you are contemplating would certainly be worthy.

One of the main reasons I stuck with Nikon was so that I could use my older fixed AIs lenses even if I have to manually focus them. But that is OK by me as I find that AF doesn't always cut the mustard for me.

As for a body, I would certainly consider the D700. It will probably be my next DSLR and what you save there over the more expensive offerings can certainly be used to purchase an additional lens or two.

I will be waiting in anticipation to finally here from you in your decision. Go for it and don't look back.

Jess

 

[mulester7]

.....I have read review after review for the past four days, and the word most used by purchasers and reviewers I found, was the word "stunning"....I'm talking about the D3x....many reviewers owned a D3, and had just bought the D3x.....

.....I remember back when everybody's mega-pixels were around 8-9 million, and I think it was Pentax came out with a sensor that had 14 million....I found a comparison review w/pictures with the Pentax against some other camera, don't remember which, and I could see a definite improvement in the image quality of the Pentax....it became more crisp, more real looking.....

.....yes, I'm considering a D3x....gold retirement watch....giving my retirement shots every chance....not to worry, my daughter will help me figure out how to load the film.....

 

[Echosphere]

Then best of care. I've given all I can. It is up to you.

Btw, I took this with a cheap ass Minolta Maxxum 5000. One of the first auto-focus cameras on the market back in the late 1980's. 50mm lens. f11 with 1/125 shutter.

This is better than a D3.

What I am trying to say is, just grab something and get out there and shoot.:thmbsp:

 

[mulester7]

This is better than a D3.

.....EchoS, they all got pretty good image quality, but to me that's when Nikon takes over in more saturated colors with high contrasts....and, just like in stereo equipment, that last 2% costs thousands....here's a review on the D3x I could associate with.....


This review is from: Nikon D3x 24.5MP FX Digital SLR (Body Only) (Electronics)

I had a F4 so thought I would jump on the digital train. This camera is like a fine tuned porsche and built like a tank. The pictures are amazing in raw and jpg. Bought a couple for the gran kids and they love them too.

 

[mulester7]

I think that unless you upgrade your current image processing/printing system to a multi-million dollar Ad agency picture quality between new zooms and fixed lenses is a mute point.

.....Todd, that is what you do every day and therefore should know....I'm sure when everything's set up and it's shutter-release time, it's still fun to you.....

 

[dpastern]

Not quite the case - the D700 and D3 use the same processor as well as image sensor and AF modules.

You are correct that the differences are in the battle readiness out in the field. The D700 has reasonably good sealing, especially for a non pro rated camera. The D3 and Canon 1 series are ultra tough. Working pros need that sort of reliability and strength (as well as performance), ordinary amateurs generally don't.

It's not necessarily status/bragging rights either. That's a vast over-simplification. I love my Canon 1 series body - it can *take* punishment if it does happen. Of course, I try and treat it nicely, but sometimes...nature doesn't always play nice.

Dave

Both Mikey and Julian are absolutely right on the D700 compared to the D3 models. I also don't doubt that the D700 has a better chip processor for better image quality.
What do you get for the extra money you spend on the D3 as compared to the D700? Battlefield worthiness. Literally. Like the F4S (that admit I owned and bought because it was bad ass, plus I liked the controls on top which was a mix of manual and automatic, it could still shoot if the batteries died...) the D3 was designed for combat situations and extreme weather and temperature conditions. From the freezing Arctic, to Mt. Everest to the sweltering humidity of the amazon and sandstorms of Iraq, it was built like a tank. 80% of amateur photographers will never utilize all the purposes of the D3 as compared to the D700. It's just status and bragging rights. Yeah it's a penis thing.

The D700 took all the best tech and FX sensor from the D3 and made it more affordable to the masses by taking out the magnesium/titanium/krypton alloy that is un-needed by 80% of most serious amateur photographers. Meaning, it was designed for YOU! Plus they beefed up and tweaked the processor for better shots. Tech moves on and improves. Oddly, nowadays more expensive does not mean better image quality btw.

Buy the D700 and then let us drool over your shots you post! :thmbsp:

 

[dpastern]

The old 12 MP D3 and the D700 are pretty close image wise, the D3 has the built in grip...both are magnesium alloy as is the D-300 and D-200, D3 is sealed up a bit better though. The MB-D10 battery grip will fit the D-700 and D-300 and is also made of magnesium alloy just like the bodies and will provide much better balance with those big metal zooms your looking at. If I won the lottery I'd be all over the D3s...ISO 102,400 images that compare to a D-300 @ ISO 6400, useable anyway for an emergency to make a 4X6 print.

ISO 102,400 is *not* that good - yet. The D300 @ ISO 6400 is far better than the D3s @ ISO 102400. Even @ 6 x 4. I personally wouldn't really go higher than 25600 with the D3s, and then only when absolutely necessary and there's no other way around getting the shot. Up to ISO 12800 the D3s is very decent, at these higher ISOs, I'd say 2 stops better than Canon's Mark IV. But, the Canon crams in 16mp into a 1.3x crop sensor, so it's *never* going to compete with Nikon. Images at ISO 6400 are wonderful from the test images I've played with, certainly equivalent to my Mark IIn's ISO 800 imho (3 stops improvement).

Since I'm committed to Canon financially, I can't justify switching to Nikon, even though the D3s is a far better camera than the Mark IV imho. Oh well...

Dave