lenses for a D700

Say that one wanted to upgrade from a D200 to a D700, in other words cropped sensor to full frame, what if any lenses would/could one keep?

Right now, the collection includes: old style Nikon 60mm macro; Nikon old style 105 macro; Nikon old style 16 FE; Nikon 12-24mm; Tokina 10-17 FE; Nikon 18-200; Nikon 70-200; really old Nikon 35-70.

I'm almost ready to upgrade from the D200, but don't know which direction to go... keep with cropped sensor or go full frame. Maybe the lenses will make the decision for me.

Thanks for any input!

Fletcher

Keep them all.

Are you trading your d200 in? If not, you still have a camera that needs a lens. You can keep the 18-200 on it for walking around.

The 12-24, 10-17, 18-200 will have issues on the D700. Even the 70-200 has some issues, which is why they have a new version. Definitely keep the 16fe. The macros are good to go.

You dump the 12-24, 10-17 and get the 17-35.

I almost dumped the 17-35 when digital came out. Now I am glad I kept it.

When I upgraded from D200 to D700 I already had the 17-35; I think it is the main go to rectilinear WA on FX at the moment, though the 14-24 will work with a large dome if edges are not important. A friend used the 14-24 with Aquatica last week in Cocos and got some great images.

I would not sell the 10-17, add a 1.4 Kenko 300 Pro TC and it works like a charm, hard to tell the difference from using it on the D200. The TC works nicely with the 16mm as well.

The 70-200 has corner sharpness issues but is OK until you can afford the new one. (Assuming it is better) The 12-24 was never my favorite lens underwater, I preferred the 17-35

Say that one wanted to upgrade from a D200 to a D700, in other words cropped sensor to full frame, what if any lenses would/could one keep?

Right now, the collection includes: old style Nikon 60mm macro; Nikon old style 105 macro; Nikon old style 16 FE; Nikon 12-24mm; Tokina 10-17 FE; Nikon 18-200; Nikon 70-200; really old Nikon 35-70.

I'm almost ready to upgrade from the D200, but don't know which direction to go... keep with cropped sensor or go full frame. Maybe the lenses will make the decision for me.

Thanks for any input!

Fletcher

I am part of the team that thinks DX is slightly better for UWPhoto.

So, I would move D300/D300s... and:

Maybe selling the 35-70 and buying one of the 50mm (below) or a DX 35mm.

Sell the 12-24 and buy the new 10-24.

Sell the 18-200... get a 18-55 VR instead, a lot cheaper (you will make money) and better IQ since you have the 70-200.

But if you want to move to D700/D700x, IMHO I would:

Initially keep all FX lenses, but the 35-70.

Sell all DX ones.

Get a 14-24mm, and buy either the 50mm/1.8D or the AF-S 50mm/1.4G.

Good luck

I am part of the team that thinks DX is slightly better for UWPhoto.

So, I would move D300/D300s... and:

Maybe selling the 35-70 and buying one of the 50mm (below) or a DX 35mm.

Sell the 12-24 and buy the new 10-24.

Sell the 18-200... get a 18-55 VR instead, a lot cheaper (you will make money) and better IQ since you have the 70-200.

 

But if you want to move to D700/D700x, IMHO I would:

Initially keep all FX lenses, but the 35-70.

Sell all DX ones.

Get a 14-24mm, and buy either the 50mm/1.8D or the AF-S 50mm/1.4G.

 

Good luck

Loftus.

You ever consider using the 16-85 over the 18-55? There are a lot of topside Photogs, trading in there 18-200's for the 16-85. Do you know of anyone that has used it U/W and how it performs?

Thanks, Bob

Assuming you go the D700 route, get rid of the DX lenses and keep the FF lenses. Still not all of the FF lenses you list are optimal for underwater.

old style Nikon 60mm macro;

Nikon old style 105 macro;

Both of these are perfect for macro. No real need to upgrade to newer versions

Nikon old style 16 FE

This is still one of the best WA on FF for underwater

Sell the Nikon 12-24mm and Tokina 10-17 FE. You don't really want to sacrifice so many pixels by using crop mode. Get a 17-35mm instead, but you'll need to add cash.

Keep the Nikon 18-200 for topside use but sell the really old Nikon 35-70. This is where FF is really going to hurt. I expect when I go FF to not part with this baby since its my most used lens for family photos and getting THE shot (framing etc.) is more important than absolute quality. You probably won't be using the 35-70 if the same range is covered here anyway, and its not of much use UW. Keep the 18-200 maybe even after you get the 24-70.

Nikon 70-200; This one is perfect for topside use. Don't be tempted to replace it with the new version.

Loftus.

 

You ever consider using the 16-85 over the 18-55? There are a lot of topside Photogs, trading in there 18-200's for the 16-85. Do you know of anyone that has used it U/W and how it performs?

 

Thanks, Bob

I have a student that bought it... but doesn't use it UW.

It is definitely better than the 18-200, I would probably chose it over the 18-55, but that's my personal taste of spending hundreds of bucks for 2mm of WA work...

I guess the 16-85 is the only reasonably priced mid-zoom that draws my attention today.

I call the 18-200 the "quiver killer". if you starting with DSLR, you buy it (spending almost as much as your camera) and you're stuck dead: since you covered almost all focal lengths you don't upgrade for a while... and you're stuck with a not-so-good optic. The 18-55VRVR + 50/1.8 combo it is worth a lot less (you can even add a strobe!!!), shoots a lot more and makes your life easier for upgrades.

When my students go for the 16-85 what I do suggest them to consider is the 70-300VR and the 50/1.8. For topside... another way.

My very own humble opinion.

I have been using a D700 since the start of the year.

This page on my website opens a gallery of some of my early shots with the D700. Obviously I have shot a lot more since then.

http://www.amustard.com/?page=D70008_gal_temp

You can see images taken with a variety of lenses with the D700, to give you an idea of which you might want to use.

In addition to the list on that page I also use the Nikon 16mm regularly. I have both the Nikon 16mm and Sigma 15mm, and I tend to use both as I feel that they slightly different strengths.

I am snapping on Vancouver Island at the moment and have the following lenses with me, which hopefully gives an idea of a typical lens selection:

Sigma 15mm FE

Nikon 17-35mm (mainly topside)

Nikon 60mm AFS

Nikon 105mm VR AFS

Sigma 150mm

Nikon 70-200mm (non-UW)

Nikon 1.7 TC II AFS

Kenko 1.5 TC

Plus a variety of additional lenses: B&W +3 dioptre (for 17-35), Nikon 5T, Canon 500D, Digital King 0.25x FE, Subsee Mk1 (Keri says that Mk1 is only compatible with 150mm on FX - I've not checked).

Alex

Just as an aside: both 12-24 and 10-17 will cover FF at some focal length onwards, around 16mm.

But you have the 16mm FE so the point is really moot, if going FF.

If you going FF you might miss the 1.5x crop factor when using your 105 macro. You might also miss the closer min focus of your 10-17.

You gain in noise performance.

I will likely stay DX for a much longer time.

I'll have to agree with DieDie. Going from the D200 to the D700, you just get FX and 2mp upgrade with superior ISO performance. Downsides are more difficult corners, new lenses to buy etc etc.

I think the D300s is a better upgrade. The ISO performance isn't as good but you get HD video and it's $1k cheaper.

Moreover, with the various lenses now being upgraded for FX slowly, it makes more sense to wait for the new lenses to appear before heading to FX.

At least with the Canon you are going from 10 mp to 21mp with FF + HD video. When a higher than 20mp Nikon D? comes out, then going to FX makes more sense.

Just as an aside: both 12-24 and 10-17 will cover FF at some focal length onwards, around 16mm.

I don't have a D700/D3/D3x to test this with but I think that these cameras sense that you are using a DX lens and automatically switch to crop mode. So, while technically you could use the 12-24mm at 16mm unless you do something tricky with the CPU contacts it won't work.

Or is there a firmware override for that?

I don't have a D700/D3/D3x to test this with but I think that these cameras sense that you are using a DX lens and automatically switch to crop mode. So, while technically you could use the 12-24mm at 16mm unless you do something tricky with the CPU contacts it won't work.

 

Or is there a firmware override for that?

There is a setting that allows you to choose the format manually or allow the camera to auto-detect DX lenses. You can use DX lens in FX mode.

Also ... If you don't have a D700 a D3 or a D3x, why would you tell someone not to be tempted to buy the new 70-200?

For the record, I own a D700 and shoot the 70-200 more than any other lens ... and I would say I'm seriously tempted to buy the new version.

The existing 70-200 is terrific from 70-135 ... but past that - especially when you get all the way to 200 - the corners aren't just soft ... they are HORRENDOUSLY SMEARED.

I don't have a D700/D3/D3x to test this with but I think that these cameras sense that you are using a DX lens and automatically switch to crop mode. So, while technically you could use the 12-24mm at 16mm unless you do something tricky with the CPU contacts it won't work.

 

Or is there a firmware override for that?

Agreed with what Jeremy said. Nikon lenses will switch automatically if you use the default menu setting, however non-Nikon lenses such as the Tokina 10-17 will not.

Which is the way I want it when I use my 10-17 with 1.4TC.

Also ... If you don't have a D700 a D3 or a D3x, why would you tell someone not to be tempted to buy the new 70-200?

 

For the record, I own a D700 and shoot the 70-200 more than any other lens ... and I would say I'm seriously tempted to buy the new version.

 

The existing 70-200 is terrific from 70-135 ... but past that - especially when you get all the way to 200 - the corners aren't just soft ... they are HORRENDOUSLY SMEARED.

Thanks. Good to know that you have control.

I only say this because IMHO there are other priorities before replacing what is one of Nikon's best optics. I think a new WA for UW or midrange zoom would be more useful and cost the same as replacing what is mostly a very good lens. From the pictures I've seen, this is only a problem at very wide apertures (where DOF is shallow anyway) and you are not likely to put important subject matter in the corner anyway. So, if you are more interested in UW, I think the emphisis should be on WA. By all means, if you have the means, the new 70-200 is bound to be dynamite.

Well, thanks so much everyone, for helping me decide what to do. After dithering for almost 2 months, and recounting my money several times, I bought a Nikon D3, gently used for a fair price.

An odd choice you may think, but here are my reasons: I dive the eastern Pacific, in dark waters, I also dive caves in north Florida plus wrecks in south Fla. My favorite shot is close focus wide angle. I certainly enjoy a good macro day, but I always go back to WA. So a camera that excels in low light will give me lots of new ideas for images. And I expect it will perform as well as my D200 in macro, even give me a higher shutter speed.

The D700 is a great camera, but I think I'll get more lo-light coverage with the D3.

Instead of the every-other-year camera upgrade which I've been going through, I think the D3 will last me a long time. I have no interest in shooting video, my husband does that. And I'm not interested in 24 megapixels, I need a more forgiving camera. The "fair price" was the deal-maker.

So I'll be looking for a couple of lenses when the bank account recovers: the 17-35 and the Sigma 150, plus a couple of teleconverters. And then of course, THE HOUSING. Oh God.

Fletcher

Umm, forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the D700 have the same sensor, processing engine and noise performance of the D3? In a smaller package and hence smaller housing... I believe the only differences is the vertical grip (which you can buy for the D700), extra FPS, & 2 CF slots. Both are mag alloy, weather sealed, same focus module.. etc. etc, D700 even has the dedicated info button which is awesome. Granted, if you got a D3 at a good price, its a spectacular camera and you'll love it.

BTW, I'm not sure what all the hub-ub is about about the 70-200mm, I shoot mine on my D700 all the time with no problems. I just shot a couple tests at 200mm and f/2.8 on a D700 and its a touch soft in the far corners but not significant. Certainly nothing tempting me to drop a couple g's on the new one. Maybe there's more sample variation than usual for nikkors?

Chris

I'll have to agree with DieDie. Going from the D200 to the D700, you just get FX and 2mp upgrade with superior ISO performance. Downsides are more difficult corners, new lenses to buy etc etc.

I think the D300s is a better upgrade. The ISO performance isn't as good but you get HD video and it's $1k cheaper.

I agree with Drew.

Regarding the D3 and D700 - they have the same sensor and AF. So identical low light performance. The D3 has a 100% viewfinder, D700 does not. The D700 will synch at 1/320th - when I have had people with a D3 and/or D3X on my trips we've not been able to get this above 1/250th with UW strobes. But don't have a D3 myself to really check this. The other advantage of the D3 is that the D3X will fit straight in the housing and the D3s will at a squeeze (with some function loss). There is no guarentee at all that a D700x or D800 will fit in the D700 housings. Depending on the manufacturer - D3 housings tend to be more neutral (because they are larger) than D700 housings (which can be negative).

Alex

Thank you for the information, but now you have given me buyer's remorse! I had spoken to 2 pros ( neither of them divers) who were stating that the D3 was the better camera for low light. One had one, one was lusting after one. But it is hard to argue with your facts.

I may return the D3 (I have 30 days to try it) and just wait another year for the next upgrade of the cropped sensor camera. Maybe the next generation will have better low-light capability.

Thanks again for your help, I learn so much from this forum.

Fletcher