All the Nikon FX Lenses You Need for Under $1000, shown on D700
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- You can find the lenses mentioned here (wait for good used prices):
28-200mm: www.amazon.com/...
35-70mm: www.amazon.com/...
35mm: www.amazon.com/...
50mm: www.amazon.com/...
Here's what I wish someone had told me:
1) Put A LOT of thought into what subject matter you will be shooting most often. For example, If you mostly shoot your kid's soccer games, you will most certainly have to have a fast (f/2.8 or wider) prime or telephoto lens of at least 200mm and you may even want 300mm, and most likely with VR. Yes, today's cameras can handle high ISO's however, for indoor sports and night games, there is no substitute for 'fast glass'. Conversely, if you mostly shoot buildings or real estate, you may find that you do not need any lenses beyond about 50mm or 90mm focal length.
2) NEVER duplicate focal lengths. For example, if your buy a 28-200mm zoom lens, do NOT turn around and buy a 35-70mm zoom. You already have those focal lengths covered.
3) If you even THINK you miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight want to shoot 35mm film at some point in the future, and you have a Nikon digital camera, do NOT buy a lens with the letter "G" in it's description. It will not be fully functional with most of Nikon's classic 35mm film cameras. Get the "D" lenses. They are bargains AND unless you're shooting professionally, you will not notice or care about the negligible increase in sharpness that SOME newer lenses have. New is not necessarily better. A lot of pro photographers will swear that some of the old, manual focus Nikkor lenses from 30+ years ago, are among the sharpest 35mm lenses Nikon (or anybody this side of Leica) ever made. I have a 30+ year old 28mm AI-s, manual focus Nikkor that's sharper than Vermont cheddar. That damn thing is ||
Alderman Fred C. Davis what lens is best for modeling? I’m getting a Nikon D700 soon and I want to know which lens is best for me
Thank you for this info!!!
The 35mm 1.8g DX is very usable on modern FX bodies, even without the crop mode, you just have to live with the slight vignetting /Holga effect at a certain shooting distance, it's not really of an issue once you get used to it, and it is much much sharper than the old 35mm f2
I like how the nikon D700 is just there looking great! Even today in 2021 is an awesome camera
Novembre 2022 and still own a D700 for my wed backup camera with a 24mm f/2.8 DC lens, an AMAZING COMBO
I have just purchased the D700 and am looking for a lens and Thanks to you are excellent video I now know that I will get the 35-70 Nikkor, I have just sold of my DX lens and camera to go full frame, my previous set up was the D300 with the Nikkor 17-55 F2.8 so you can see I am looking for quality in my full frame lens and this 35-70 looks great to me. Thank You very much for a great video. Terry.
Yes, not all cheaper lenses are suitable. But I can assure you the 35mm f2D and 50mm 1.8G at f/2.8 will be sharper than the pro 24-70mm corner to corner. The 35-70 comes close (especially at the center) as it was also a pro lens back in the days. The 28-200 is a superzoom and we shouldn't expect great optics from it, except it's great as a light travel lens.
Good video. I actually have an affinity to constant apertures, but I say you can still manage that wide to tele under 1K, my setup: D700, 17-35 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 70-210 2.8
I would swap out the 35 for something wider, get a cheap ultrawide such as a 20mm, and instead of the 28-200 get the 70-210 f4, or even a used 3rd party f2.8 70/80-200 used which *occasionally* go for $300-$400
This is a great review.
I would suggest looking into Nikon 24mm f/2.8 instead of 35mm lens.
Another lens that could be a nice alternative (to 28-200 G) is an older 28-105. It is cheaper and it has a macro mode at 105mm.
+Vitaliy Gyrya The 28-200mm G also has "macro" and will focus down to 1.4 feet at all focal lengths and unlike the 28-105mm you do not have to move a switch to get into close focus mode
PHOT0GUY That looks like an interesting lens. I would love to try it out. Meanwhile I can only compare them based on online reviews. And it seams like there were some compromises made to double the range. Whether those are acceptable or not I cannot judge before paying with it myself.
+Vitaliy Gyrya Be aware that there is some sample variation. The lens I have is not as sharp on the left edge on full frame wide angle until stopped down a few stops. It is very handy having the close focus at 200mm though as it lets you be a little further from insects etc when doing close ups. A big bonus is that it only weighs 13 ounces.
I had the 24mm f2.8 when I had my D700 and when I first turned pro and it's a superb lens.
Nice video and advice, I've had my D700 from new in 2009, but kept my eye on eBay for years to get my glass collection, and have the original 24-70 and 70-200 VR lenses for bargain used prices.
Everyone forgets about these 2 budget, but outstanding Nikkor lenses. The 28-80mm f3.3 - 5.6 G and the 80-200mm f4.5 - 5.6 D Sure they are plastic but the glass is what counts. The 28-80mm has only 6 elements in it the same as the 50mm f1.8 D Insanely sharp. The 80-200mm will stun anyone with it's sharpness and great color rendition. You can get the 28-80mm for $40 and the 80-200mm for $50 in good or better condition.
Can you please suggest lenses covering range as from 16-18mm to 200-300mm for d7100.
I got lucky at a local shop and found the last screw drive version of the 80-200 2.8D for $500. It's got a built in irremovable tripod foot I always have to rotate out of the way so I can support that metal and glass with my free hand. It's a very exciting lens to use because I mostly use it for fast action, there's no delay or hesitation in AF it just snaps from target to target. Probably my sharpest zoom lens as well.
consider the nikon 24-85 VR G 3.5 4.5 for 400$ . its sharpest mid range zoom
I keep hearing good things about this lens.
I recently got this lens and I love it.
David Duong the 18_35 is nice too
MirrorlessReviews...what a name for a channel reviewing DSLRs :)
So this video is from 7 years ago and I own a Fuji XT2 with some glass but recently, I have had a look at how affordable full-frame bodies were down to. Be it the 5D MkII or the 6D or even, as in this video, the D700. The glass you are showing here, today would set you back at $850... With a D700 at $365, that brings back full-frame and quality glass in the market. Great review, thanks :)
Nice video! I have a D60. I just purchased the 1.4 G 50 mm. I opted for the 1.4 over the 1.8 because I perceived the 1.4 to have a better build quality. The 1.4 was $200 more. Love the clarity of the photos.
I hope you sent $400 and bought D700, also.
Hey, I know you are busy can you make a video on this legendary camera (if you still have it) and some of the other lens options as there are extremely few videos on D700 compared to other cameras that came after it, thanks
I would really recommend just the tamron 28 70 g2 used. On dx its range from 36 to 105, all at f2.8. Instead of having multiple lenses, a used cost of around 850 usd is actually a much headache free decision for both dx and fx owners. I have 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. All those primes might be gone now after I bought the tamron. No need to go about changing lenses.
I use the 35-70 instead of my 24-70 G AF-S when taking into situations where the more fragile / expensive lens could be damaged. It performs very well in comparison and with the price difference is a great low cost FX lens. Everyone needs to know that it suffers from a structural flaw that effects most if not eventually all. One of the internal optics separates and exposes the cement causing a haze that effects contrast. I had my problematic optic replaced with one that will not separate and it is like new again. Just remember you will have to add in this repair cost on top of the lens purchase. I would not use the 35-70 with the haze. The 35mm F/2 D and the 50mm 1.8 G are also great choices. I have both and use them along with my higher end glass. Great review.
It's 2021 and I'm still using my D700 and I wouldn't consider the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G lens because it doesn't have VR but in 2021 Nikon mirrorless bodies have IBIS which would solve the lack of VR. If it were me I'd get the 50 f/1.8G because of upward compatibility with newer Nikon bodies that don't use the in camera focus motor. Yes the 35-70 f/2.8D is an awesome lens, I've made money using that lens but like all push-pull lenses it will introduce dust to the image sensor. I agree with you that the 35 f/2D is an awesome lens and I prefer it to the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4G lenses I own but I replaced it with the much better 35 f/1.8G which is also compatible with Nikon's Z mount!
Hi. Im just started using D700 upgraded from D90. What will the best budget telephoto lens that will work well for D700?
I don't see any wide-angles? At least 24mm?
In this case, cheaper doesn't mean less resolution. All of these lenses (except maybe 28-200mm, but that's expected) have excellent MTFs. They are very sharp even for APS-C sensors such as D7000, which has about the same pixel pitch as D800.
Awesome video. Helped me a lot with great information. Thank you very much for doing it . Well done
You can also get the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for about $150 brand new! It's the older version that doesn't have a built in motor in the lens (Because you'll be using your body's motor to auto focus, so it's all good!) I have that one for my film camera. Works great and is super cheap too! :D
How many lenses are needed to cover 35-50 range? I believe there is a lot of redundancy in these selections. Better to cover ‘ultra’ or ‘wide’, mid prime, tele, super tele… pick 3 or 4 carefully and you cover 10/20 to 200/300mm for under $1000...
Thanks. Great older Nikkor FX Lens recommendations for Nikon Full-Frame cameras with built in screw focusing mechanism. For those on a budget but still need Nikkor quality.May I also suggest the Nikkor AFD 70-210mm lens, not a f2.8 but at a lighter weight and size, all metal and really focus fast at about $200-$300 on eBay
Yes, I recommended the 50mm 1.8G instead of 1.8D because of its superior sharpness (due to Asph elements) and much better bokeh rendition. It's also got full time MF override.
Thanks for sharing, perfect guidance
I have the 50mm lens, it is brilliant. I will look into a few of the other here. Thanks!
Non D lenses don't transmit distance information to the camera, so auto flash photography would be more difficult. Other than that it's usually the same optics.
If you want to keep the budget low then I'd recommend the 24mm f2.8D. It's a very sharp lens and will give you the wide angle. Of course there is always the 14-24mm 2.8G but it's very expensive.
Good video.
I have or have had all those lens. Well worth the price.
I also have the 85mm af d. Very nice portrait.
Hi, I am currently browsing Ebay for this lens. I come across a lot of 35-70 2.8 (Without the D). Can you please advise whether this "non D" lens is as good as the one you are describing in the video? Thanks for your reply! Mitch
Hi, thanks for sharing. I have a D610 but I only have DX lenses, will these lenses get rid of the crop factor issue and take advantage of the full frame feature? I did not understand if these are FX lenses... Thanks!
These are all FX
2021,still useful information.
My lens lineup is as follows
Nikon 20mm 1.8
Nikon 40mm 2.8 DX (Marco Only) replacing with the 35mm F/2D
NIkon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G
Cost me $1150.00 total
I shoot with a D810 and a D3400
I got all these at bargain prices even though the 20mm/85/mm cost a pretty penny...
Great video. If you could get either a 50mm 1.8g, or a 50mm 1.4d, both for the same price, what would you recommend, for use on a d700?
Thanks
Great review.. good tips... Thanks a ton !
Nice good descriptive video!
you always mentioned "made in Japan"... does it matter if made somewhere else?
Nice review. Nice to get ideas of good lenses but on a budget.
Hi, any alternative for my d7000? Looking for a fixed 2.8 zoom 50/70 max lenght but hard to find. 28 on DX isn't wide, any old Af zoom starting from 17 or 24? Cheap, under 150€
nerd Mike Theres nothing with 2.8 for this price. You can take a look on the Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5. This costs in good condition around 100$.
Leo Born do you mean af-s version? Atm I bought a used 18-55vr 2 for 40€, with uv filter and caps, like new. 👍 mainly because of vr, 70 4.5 hard to use indoor and on low light situations.
nerd Mike Okay, for 40 bucks its definitely a great choice! And VR is always great.
it's fine and very silent :)
I have the same 35-70mm 2.8 zoom lens. But I have a problem with it, sometimes when i put my aperture at f2.8, and zoom in or out, the aperture automatically jumps to f3.5, and i can't put it back to f2.8, I have to undo the lens and put it back on. ever had the same thing with yours?
Check your aperture ring. Might be getting caught.
then that means it not a variable lens not a constant one
the more you zoom out the slower it gets
Calvin Murphy It is a constant aperture, believe me.
ok :) do you have an APSC sensor?
***** ok :) do you have an APSC sensor?
I have no doubt that this is a great video and those are all great lenses. But I'm a landscape guy and none of those lenses look wide enough for landscapes. You could make an argument for the 28-200..... but I would probably trade in the 35mm f2 and go for something a little wider. What do you recommend?
There is a 35-70 3.5 but I'm not sure if there is 35-70 2.8 non-D.
I am about to purchase a D7100. If you could pick only one, what would it be? I need all around kicker, meaning, a bit of a portrait, automobile photograph, etc. Do you think I would be good with the 35-70 or you would suggest me something else? Budget of about $400 ..
the 18-200mm would be a good general purpose lens and if you buy used you would probably have enough left over for a prime lens too.
Thanks man!
I agree that if your are a regular consumer who is shooting their family vacation, the 70-200 and the 24-70 may be too big and expensivefor you. But when your shooting to sell to a client, there is no way im trusting a cheapo wide angle to telephoto zoom lens.
Excellent picks!
Very nice video, informative and comprehensive, and obviously from an honest guy. Thank you.
The 80-200 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever tried it’s amazing. But it has no VR and it’s heavy to hand hold. You can get them cheaper than 1000. Also it has no focus breathing. It’s so good it’s scary.
Agreed! It’s one of the only zoom lenses I recommend. Sharp as a tack and built like a tank not to mention much cheaper than the 70-200 2.8! I own about 45 lenses and the 80-200 is always my go-to for moderate telephoto uses. I love my 300mm 2.8 but it’s so big and heavy it’s hard to use handheld without a monopod/tripod.
Very useful video. Thank you.
Yes, the D7000 has about the same amount of pixels per square centimetre BUT its a CROP sensor camera and all those nasty things take place outside that crop area.
Yes. I'm more starting out in photography. I want to expand my lens upgrades to and old but pro setup and this video helped me. I have an 18-200mm f5.6 DX and a 50mm f1.8 G. I am investing on the 80-200 f2.8 you displayed here, as it has a fast aperture and appears to also be macro capable.
Which one of these would you use for portrait shots the 50mm or ?
Yes, the 50. But I like the 85 af d better for portraits.
I have the 50mm 1. 8g for my d750, was looking at the 24-85 vr 3.5-4.5 as my walk around lens for the wider angle part, maybe the 18-35? Idk yet though. I want a good street walk around general lens for no more than 250
F you do go for this lens, pay a little more and get the vr version we good lens
a person could save even more by considering 'af (non-d)' versions of lenses. all that 'd' adds is the possibility of 3d-matrix metering and distance information for the flash, which i guess only matters if you're shooting through a mirror. they auto-focus slowly, but so does the af-d version, relative to af-s.
here are the prices i scored on adorama and ebay, respectively
nikon ed 80-200 2.8 af (non-d) $300
nikkor 50 1.4 af (non-d) $130
i haven't found any parallel bargains at the wider end. the do-it-all 28-200 would take the fun out of the kit for me; i wouldn't take it off the camera. plus it's too slow to be a bargain for $300. of course the dx 35 1.8 af-s ($120) is a no-brainer if you're shooting dx. otherwise it seems like you have to go manual focus or third party or give up the pro level speed.
What about the 50 1.8d?
Or pick two prime lenses of your choice then go out and shoot... The situation will tell you to shoot your best pictures with those two lenses 🙂😉
Awesome job done explaining capabilities of these lenses. I didn't even know some of them existed...
what is the cost of that 700 new ?? with no lens.
If you pay for them, I will be happy to get both 24-70 and 70-200.
In fact I will also get 14-24 and the new 80-400 :-)
But seriously, full frames becoming more and more affordable. Why shouldn't I get a used D700 for around $1,300 without having to spend another $1,500 on either 24-70 or 70-200?
Great video man
.. thanks for this very cool tip.
Couldnt find any of your recommended lenses on Nikon web site. Are they still on sale?
Most are very old and therefore discontinued. That push/pull lens is no good - technology is too old and glass nowhere near as good as newer products.
colblimp Umm... you ever use it? Optically, it's about the same as the 28-70, which ain't exactly a piece of crap. Oh, and it's less than half the price and a lot smaller.
Will return to mirrorless reviews very soon, with an upcoming OM-D EM5 review...
Hey, pretty old video xD But i was wondering, the 28-200mm nikkor is a fx lense? When searching it up i only find dx refence.
will the 28-200mm lens work with nikon d610?
Yes, I often use one with my D600
Yes
hi, i baught a d700 and the guy threw in a vr nikkor 24-120 lens. whats the lens worth ?
$50
Im in agreement with the use of cheaper lenses where you can, without sacrificing on quality. I love using primes for newborn and baby shoots, but cheap zooms, I'm not so sure. It all depends on your application. My favourite lens is the 24-70, but my cheapy 50mm 1.8 af-d gives beautiful images and good bokeh on the D700
will these work on the nikon D7000 (DX mount)?
its not a "DX mount" its DX sensor format, yes the mount is the same, they will work because d7000 has a built in af motor ( old lenses ) 50mm works anyways, rly worth the 50 btw
F Mount man
Great video.
Thinking in buy the 35-70mm f/2.8, i'm seeing in multiple videos a good review of this lens, a cheap middle range lens, so perfect... Now talking about the 80-200mm f/2.8 i bought the push&pull version in december for $370 and its the same lens of the video, i recommended the push&pull version, it's more cheaper and still luminous and having a great quality.
Increasing ISO lets you use a faster shutter speed.
You could go for the Voightlander 20 f/3.5. It has a very slick and smooth manual focus ring and is pretty sharp in the corners around f8-f11.
400$ used.
Does it work the other way around? So fx lenses on dx bodys?
All FX lenses will work on any DX bodies, just add the x1.50 crop factor. For example: 24mm FX lens it will become 36mm if you put on a DX body.
If you use a DX lens on a FX body you'll get a black crop around the edges of your viewfinder and you won't be able to use the full potential of a full frame sensor but it'll work.
***** OH ok thanks man :)
uping the iso to compensate for no stabilization is a poor choice to make.....need to stay at or under 70mm with NO stabilization.....f3.5 is not acceptable, need constant f2.8.....
Great video. Very well stated.
interesting video but if money is an issue why not just get a d3100 w/ kit lens and the 55/200 and go have fun this setup in capable hands can do wonders. Our cameras are just tools some tools preform better than others. Some jobs need better tools. but I respect his pov and it's works for him.
I agree, because FX is expensive, but point being if you need to, you can spend 1k on FX lenses. Although with lenses this crappy (minus the primes), it's pointless having the FX body... Sooooo I guess I agree hahahahaha
the d3100 is not in the same class as the D700 with these lenses. Your comparing consumer stuff with Pro stuff. There is a reason they are in different classes.
of course it's not the same class, that's not the point. a lot of people get all caught up in "oh I must have a D3 and the Holy trinity" to be a great photographer, when the sad fact is with several grand worth of gear and a lousy shooter you still get bad photos. but some think it's all about the gear not what's behind the gear.
Firstly, all the D lens in this video is sharp from end to end, by only using 35mm and 50mm mostly can done all the standard job.. professional prefer prime over zoom.. Second, getting power D prime and put on FX its tottaly different level.. even the sensor also affecting the picture sharpness, colour contrast and etc.. and for those always shoot under super low light, its DX is totally useless, except you do it for ur own hobby.. Doest mean that i say you are wrong, but its depend what kind of job u doing, for professional studio work, even using D3000 and 18-55 kit lens with good studio lighting, is far more enough. But when at field shooting such as wedding, the camera performance will be more important. but that 28-300 serious crap~
will these work on nikon d3200
+nikolas gomez jaramillo nope, you need an intern focus mechanism. d 7xxx and above
Thanks for your review...the only lens I would stay away from is the 35-70 2.8. I know it is an awesome lens but it is so fragile as far as getting moister in it, which leads to the fogging issue in it. Not to mention the balsam separation.You could only use it in the best of conditions or indoors..I am sure there are people that will say they have had their for a long time and had no problems but there are more people that have had real issues with it and to buy one now with no issues is hard to find.
Hi,
I notice you haven't been releasing new videos lately, I find most of your videos to be very informative and contains accurate info, like the one above with more than 110,00 viewers.
I am a subscriber and not hesitate to produce more videos I will be watching.
Thanks. Gotten busy with work ;)
This is a great video. Thanx for putting it out there. i wish i saw this when i was picking up my lenses. I did go with the 28-200 3.5-5.6g as my first lens. I was spoiled by trinity glass afterward and blew my budget. You should not some of the cons of the lens you mention to better understand their pricing. I believe the 35-70 has hazing problems on select serial numbers due to the cement on the lens degrading.
all the best, keep up the good work
what's the difference between DX and FX lenses ?
+Kyle Roxx DX are for cropped frame sensors (D3xxx, D5xxx,, D7xxx) and FX is for Full frame cameras (D6xx, D7xx, D8xx etc).
You can use FX lenses on DX cameras and FX cameras but if you use a DX lens on an FX camera you will usually get a lot of vignetting unless you just use the central portion of the image. The only major difference is that an FX lens will produce an image that covers a larger area than a DX lens (to cover the FX sensor). Magnification is identical though e.g. a 50mm FX lens will produce the same size image on a DX sensor as a 50mm DX lens would.
you can use fx lenses on dx but you have to account for the 1.5x crop due to dx being smaller than full frame (FX) you can use both type of lenses on FX cameras and but the DX ones will be used on DX crop mode on your camera to avoid vignetting, the other way works perfect no vignetting and gives you de advantage to keep the lenses for a future upgrade to a full frame camera and use them at their full potential and at their actual focal length ;)
The 80-200mm and other AF-D lenses don't have nano coatings, and are generally prone to flaring and ghosting. That's why even though I love AF-D build quality, I can't stand them.
I like primes! I use a Nikkor 85mm F1.8G and Tamron 35mm F1.4. for indoors and black/white stuff, I like to use a Zeiss 85mm F1.4. for a work lens! picking up a Nikkor 85mm F1.8G is not a bad move :)
I agree to a disagree. The 28-200 is a great all around lens that will keep you on your toes. You can get sharp images out of it if you discipline yourself and shoot properly. I use it to practice my due diligence in shooting. Exposure, Grip + Stance, proper AutoFocus setup. I can analyze what i did wrong if the image isn't sharp because i take notes on all my shots with this lens. I use it on my D800
Great review of affordable quality Nikon lenses.If I can add anything positive to your review its lenses with vr capability.This vr alone has changed my entire photography profession to where I will not buy a non-vr lens again if possible.Although I do own and use a 50mm f/1.8g and when needed will bring my 12-24mm f/2.8 when weight is not a consideration,when it is the vr 16-35mm f/4 is in bag. I love not having to carry a tripod anymore.My big bag now usually has a 16-35mm vr,28-300mm vr and 1.8g nifty fifty.Used from ebay for less tan 1800$.I realize that's considerably more money but picture quality is there and I get to run and gun much more often.I realize Nikon's QC has been questionable as of lately but it appears to me Canon glass is just to expensive and has too many gaps in there lens lineup,this is what , especially lately with their QC problems has kept me with Nikon.Ive also noticed most of the new fx bodies are now compatible with almost all Nikon lenses made in last 50yrs.I am by no way dis agreeing with you Nikon lens selection is so wide you got to keep your ears open to help pick up any pointers on any hidden gems.I'm wonder how many compatible lenses are out there for my d610.Your article really got my brain cells excited.Thanks for article!
I love nikon for this. Their D series lenses are a steal. They af on bodies like the D750 and are so freaking amazing in quality and yet cheap just cuz they are old. The 135 F2 D for eg is a phenomenal lens for the price! and most important to notice is that nikon actually still manufactures these lenses; though they are not in stock most of the time and you need to speak to a high ranking sales rep to get them in my country. These lenses put out a real amazing statement that you don't need to spend a tonne for amazing quality. Nikon can easily discontinue these lenses and force people to either buy used or get the newer freaking expensive lenses! But they haven't done that and that's what I love about the company. Even their mount is so old and amazing that a lot of vintage lenses work on it. It really unlocks millions of possibilities - not just for the wallet but also for the creative minds.
The only lens I'd love to add to this list in 2020 is the 85 1.8G. It sells at around $350 new here in India and there isn't anything close to it's quality at that price point. Only lacks VR but that isn't important in 2020 for photographers cuz the cameras not can shoot in virtually no light!
WHAT ABOUT THE 70-210 f4 ??? CHEAP AND GREAT QUALITY !!!! $180 BUCKS!!!
Great reviews. Also great for folks with a D7000 and up crop sensor camera who plan to add a full frame to the stable later. I might downgrade my 50mm selection to a used 1.8mm for $80. And try to find a used 80-200mm f2.8 (TheBeast) used. I got a used one for $450, 4 years ago. Or do the used nifty 50 and upgrade to the 70-300mm with VR. You can now get a D7100 for $500 or less. I would use either combo for soccer or low light situations where reach is a factor. The 800-200mm lens is effectively a 120-300mm at 2.8 and the 70-300mm VR is 105-450mm on the D7nnn cameras. I am very happy with indoor club shots on a D750 at up to 3200 iso on with TheBeast. I have shot 1000s of NCAA women’s soccer photos with TheBeast day and night on a D750. Mostly from behind the goal out to 50 yards. I prefer imag shots. I have also shot length of the field shots handheld on a D7100 with the 70-300mm VR. Still had to crop a little, but that’s on a 140 yard field goal to goal. There is a reason nikon made the D500. Crop sensors rock for sports because who can afford a $7000 lens? A 200 shot RAW buffer?
2.45 happens to the best of us!
The list on the this website mentions a non D lens, so it must exists, I think: photosynthesis[dot]co[dot]nz, under serial numbers.
But in general, would a non D be much less in image quality, focussing, etc?
You can say that again! Cheap lenses just suck. Their softness and CA will be quite noticeable with a full frame sensor.
needs more prime
stopped watching at the 28-200
I compared my new 24-70 f2.8 and my 10 year old Micro nikkor 60mm I set the 24-70 to about 60mm.
Result: what a difference. The photos taken with my new 24-70mm lens are so much sharper in combination with me D800 than the photos take with my 60mm lens although I always thought the micro nikkor was a bloody good lens.
So, you can make a mistake getting a cheaper lens when it comes to the D800.
Why not the 35 1.8?
its DX format, doenst work on full frame d700
Well no: there is a FX 35 1.8, too.
paranoia1337 He's trying to stay under a grand
paranoia1337 the fx version of the 35mm f1.8G is about 500-600 bucks usd and its obvious to go for the 35mm f2d since its much cheaper.
he doesn't consider the 35mm because two years ago (at the moment of the video) this lens didn't exist!!!
quote NIkonstar the 35mm f2 is not too bad instead the 1.8 is smaller and it works on film...in my opinion is more versatile
f/3.5? That's actually pretty slow for a prime lens
There can be issues with cheaper lenses when you use the latest D800/D800E because they give such a good resolution that you differences between the lenses.
Your recommendation goes against the review of Kent Rockwell. It seems that the G version is adding more distortion on FX camera and has mostly no advantage else that having an internal AF.
I'm going to buy one of these lenses tomorrow(!). I was about to buy the D model.