Hi Frank,
I wonder why you would need F/16 and F/22 for landscapes, to be very honest. You could, sharpness wise, use any old lens indeed, as there are extremely few lenses which aren't diffraction limited at F/16 and F/22, hence won't get more resolution than is possible at all due to the diffraction limit at these apertures, and you will also be very hard pressed to see any more DoF due to the loss of detail.
IMO it pays to close th eaperture no further than F/8 or F/11 with (U)WA lenses, because with a little bit of judicial focusing you will get increased sharpness, while having plenty (more than enough) DoF still.
Furthermore, on the D700, the resolution curves will look dramatically different as compared to the D3x. The resolution for edge, border and centre will be much, much closer together, and all veer towards the maximum possible, due to the much lower resolution of the D700 sensor, and the corresponding AA-filter. IOW, it is really hard if not impossible to translate the D3X figures to the D700. Overall, things will look a lot better.
As to a wider openign than F/4, with good sharpness, the Nikkor 14-24 is almost unbeatable. There are only a few lenses in that class, namely Zeiss 21 F/2.8, Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8, Canon 24L II, Nikkor 24 F/1.4, Canon TS-E 24L II and Canon TS-E 17L, where at teh UWA end obviosuly TS-E 17, Nokkor 14-24 and Zeis 21 stand out.
Either of these are top class lenses, and obviously the Canon won't work with your D700. IQ wise both Nikkor 14-24 and Zeiss 21 are a match, with as main differences that the Nikkor has less vignetting overall, even wide open and goes right to 14 mm which provides quite a bit more AoV than 21, the Zeiss is a lot lighter and takes much less expensive filters, the Nikkor has AF, the Zeiss requires MF. I've shot both on Canon, BTW, and my personal preference goes to the Nikkor, because of the much lower amount of vignetting wide open.
I have read many a test, and in one test the Zeiss will come out slightly better, and in another the Nikkor, so in effect they are really a wash, if you'd ask me. To me the preference goes to Nikkor because of the much wider view possible, still at world class IQ, AF, and because of the much smaller amount of vignetting. The Nikkor is a litle more expensive, but IMO more than worth it.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
I wonder why you would need F/16 and F/22 for landscapes, to be very honest. You could, sharpness wise, use any old lens indeed, as there are extremely few lenses which aren't diffraction limited at F/16 and F/22, hence won't get more resolution than is possible at all due to the diffraction limit at these apertures, and you will also be very hard pressed to see any more DoF due to the loss of detail.
IMO it pays to close th eaperture no further than F/8 or F/11 with (U)WA lenses, because with a little bit of judicial focusing you will get increased sharpness, while having plenty (more than enough) DoF still.
Furthermore, on the D700, the resolution curves will look dramatically different as compared to the D3x. The resolution for edge, border and centre will be much, much closer together, and all veer towards the maximum possible, due to the much lower resolution of the D700 sensor, and the corresponding AA-filter. IOW, it is really hard if not impossible to translate the D3X figures to the D700. Overall, things will look a lot better.
As to a wider openign than F/4, with good sharpness, the Nikkor 14-24 is almost unbeatable. There are only a few lenses in that class, namely Zeiss 21 F/2.8, Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8, Canon 24L II, Nikkor 24 F/1.4, Canon TS-E 24L II and Canon TS-E 17L, where at teh UWA end obviosuly TS-E 17, Nokkor 14-24 and Zeis 21 stand out.
Either of these are top class lenses, and obviously the Canon won't work with your D700. IQ wise both Nikkor 14-24 and Zeiss 21 are a match, with as main differences that the Nikkor has less vignetting overall, even wide open and goes right to 14 mm which provides quite a bit more AoV than 21, the Zeiss is a lot lighter and takes much less expensive filters, the Nikkor has AF, the Zeiss requires MF. I've shot both on Canon, BTW, and my personal preference goes to the Nikkor, because of the much lower amount of vignetting wide open.
I have read many a test, and in one test the Zeiss will come out slightly better, and in another the Nikkor, so in effect they are really a wash, if you'd ask me. To me the preference goes to Nikkor because of the much wider view possible, still at world class IQ, AF, and because of the much smaller amount of vignetting. The Nikkor is a litle more expensive, but IMO more than worth it.
HTH, 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 ....