09-04-2010, 09:33 PM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283633981' post='2489']
Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!!
Kindly, very confused wolf!
[/quote]
Actually, if you want to get the best out of most lenses, get a D700. 12 MP FF make older (FF, and analog) lenses still look very, very good, better than on APS-C, and you get much more DoF control on FF, which was really what was Brightcolours about. With a Nikon, you get about 1.5 stops of extra DoF (IOW, a minimum amount of DoF that is larger by 1.5 stops, which you can't control as it is built-in) on APS-C, as compared to FF (with Canon that is 1.6X), hence the comparison with a FF lens that would be equivalent for FL and maximum aperture for DoF. As Brightcolour sindicated, an F/2.8 lens on FF would give you the shallow DoF of F/2.8 on FF. whereas F/2.8 on APS-C would give you a DoF equivalent to about F/5 on FF. Thsi si why FF gives you much more DoF control, you still have that extra 1.5 stops to play with.
The only hassle is that you don't get the crop factor on FF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. You can crop yourself, but that way you end up with approx. 5 MP images, if you like, and if that is ok for you, I reckon you're better off with FF.
Of course, the advantage with Nikon is that you can use a DX lens with an FX body, it'll indicate in the VF where the crop actually is, but again, in that case you'll end up with approx. 5 MP images. BTW, I made a few 60 cm X 90 cm prints from an 8MP jpeg image only, which was converted from a heavily overexposed image, and it actually looks very great if you don't come closer than about 2 m (i.e, normal viewing distance). IOW, with a properly exposed 5MP picture you can still make quite large prints, provided you know how to uprez etc.
Here on Photozone, when a lens gets in the "good" category for optical results, you can be sure it is a very good lens in the field and for prints which are not scrutinized at 100 to 200 % <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> (which you don't normally do). The main difference then is all about other characteristics, like price, rendering (bokeh, microcontrast, vignetting, etc.), AF, build, etc. You'll have to decide what is most important to you in that case. For zoom lenses on Nikon I would most probably opt for Nikkor lenses, and maybe a specific Tamron, like macro lenses from Tamron, or from Tokina. Tamron, of the 3rd party manufacturers, probaly comes closest to Nikon in the way the images come out, but Nikkors are probably, in general anyway, best, be it that the Nikkor name and build comes at a price.
As was suggested, with a D300s the best way to start is likely th e16-85 Nikkor and the new Tamron telezoom mentioned, plus any decent macro lens (or even a good prime with extension tubes, something I prefer these days, except with very large magnifications (let's say, > 1.5:1 etc.)
With a D700, I think the new 24-120 F/4 is probably the way to go, and likely the same 70-300, and the same (FF) macro lens. The 24-85 you mentioned, will probably do very nicely on the D700 too. Do note that 24 mm on FF is equivalent to 16 mm on APS-C with Nikon, while 24 mm on APS-C is equivalent to 36 mm on FF. Essentially the main difference between D300s and D700 will be price and reach in favour of D300s, with IQ and DoF control in favour of D700.
I reckon those are really the main points you need to decide upon. Well, for me they would be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim
Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!! Kindly, very confused wolf!
[/quote]
Actually, if you want to get the best out of most lenses, get a D700. 12 MP FF make older (FF, and analog) lenses still look very, very good, better than on APS-C, and you get much more DoF control on FF, which was really what was Brightcolours about. With a Nikon, you get about 1.5 stops of extra DoF (IOW, a minimum amount of DoF that is larger by 1.5 stops, which you can't control as it is built-in) on APS-C, as compared to FF (with Canon that is 1.6X), hence the comparison with a FF lens that would be equivalent for FL and maximum aperture for DoF. As Brightcolour sindicated, an F/2.8 lens on FF would give you the shallow DoF of F/2.8 on FF. whereas F/2.8 on APS-C would give you a DoF equivalent to about F/5 on FF. Thsi si why FF gives you much more DoF control, you still have that extra 1.5 stops to play with.
The only hassle is that you don't get the crop factor on FF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. You can crop yourself, but that way you end up with approx. 5 MP images, if you like, and if that is ok for you, I reckon you're better off with FF.Of course, the advantage with Nikon is that you can use a DX lens with an FX body, it'll indicate in the VF where the crop actually is, but again, in that case you'll end up with approx. 5 MP images. BTW, I made a few 60 cm X 90 cm prints from an 8MP jpeg image only, which was converted from a heavily overexposed image, and it actually looks very great if you don't come closer than about 2 m (i.e, normal viewing distance). IOW, with a properly exposed 5MP picture you can still make quite large prints, provided you know how to uprez etc.
Here on Photozone, when a lens gets in the "good" category for optical results, you can be sure it is a very good lens in the field and for prints which are not scrutinized at 100 to 200 % <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> (which you don't normally do). The main difference then is all about other characteristics, like price, rendering (bokeh, microcontrast, vignetting, etc.), AF, build, etc. You'll have to decide what is most important to you in that case. For zoom lenses on Nikon I would most probably opt for Nikkor lenses, and maybe a specific Tamron, like macro lenses from Tamron, or from Tokina. Tamron, of the 3rd party manufacturers, probaly comes closest to Nikon in the way the images come out, but Nikkors are probably, in general anyway, best, be it that the Nikkor name and build comes at a price.As was suggested, with a D300s the best way to start is likely th e16-85 Nikkor and the new Tamron telezoom mentioned, plus any decent macro lens (or even a good prime with extension tubes, something I prefer these days, except with very large magnifications (let's say, > 1.5:1 etc.)
With a D700, I think the new 24-120 F/4 is probably the way to go, and likely the same 70-300, and the same (FF) macro lens. The 24-85 you mentioned, will probably do very nicely on the D700 too. Do note that 24 mm on FF is equivalent to 16 mm on APS-C with Nikon, while 24 mm on APS-C is equivalent to 36 mm on FF. Essentially the main difference between D300s and D700 will be price and reach in favour of D300s, with IQ and DoF control in favour of D700.
I reckon those are really the main points you need to decide upon. Well, for me they would be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
