[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283460960' post='2432']

Thanks again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Have you an idea what the price of the 24-105 will be? Also, I have an offer for a used D700, less than 10000 pics, bought in Nov 09 for 1700€ and finally, what do you think of a used 2,8 35-70 D for 280€?

Vieux loup

[/quote]



Fully agree with wim here, a D700 for 1700 EUR does not really sound like a terrific deal to me.



The 24-120/4 VR will be priced in the range of 1000 to 1100 EUR.



I haven't used a 35-70/2.8 myself, but I'm not sure it's a good choice for the D700.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1283463580' post='2436']

I have to disagree here, especially with the 350D/5D. I never understood why Canon left out the most important Af fields in these cameras.



If you carefully compare the AF moduls (I once did) you'll find out that the D3 module (also used in D700 and D300) covers, by a small margin, currently the largest size, followed by the Mark IV.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Disagree with what exactly, Marcus? I was talking about the width and the height of the AF sensor (and subsequent vertical and horizontal AF point spread).

The D3 module covers the widest area (by a small margin, as you say), some Canon models cover a "higher" area (again, by a small margin).



But in general there is not a big difference in AF sensor area (besides the 3-point horizontal row AF systems found in the Nikon D40/40x/60 and Pentax *ist DL (if I am not mistaken).



One small rectification: The D300 uses the same or similar AF sensor as the D3/700/D3x, but not the same module. Obviously, as it has an APS-C size mirror box, so at least the Af module optics have to be different due to the different distance.

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283464516' post='2439']

Disagree with what exactly, Marcus? I was talking about the width and the height of the AF sensor (and subsequent vertical and horizontal AF point spread).[/quote]



Yes, but many Canon cameras (starting with the 20D) use a diamond/rhombus shaped module that leaves out some important (to me) areas. The maximum spread may besimilar to the larger and more crowded AF modules, but the area covered is definitely smaller.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283464516' post='2439']

One small rectification: The D300 uses the same or similar AF sensor as the D3/700/D3x, but not the same module. Obviously, as it has an APS-C size mirror box, so at least the Af module optics have to be different due to the different distance.

[/quote]



I don't know if they are different or not, but they carry only slightly different names (MultiCAM 3500 DX for D300/D300s and MultiCAM 3500 FX for D700/D3/D3s/D3x).



However, the flange distance is the same for both DX and FX, consequently the position of the AF sensor is the same, too. They're usually in the bottom of the mirror box, illuminated by a secondary mirror right behind the main mirror.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1283465563' post='2440']

Yes, but many Canon cameras (starting with the 20D) use a diamond/rhombus shaped module that leaves out some important (to me) areas. The maximum spread may besimilar to the larger and more crowded AF modules, but the area covered is definitely smaller.







I don't know if they are different or not, but they carry only slightly different names (MultiCAM 3500 DX for D300/D300s and MultiCAM 3500 FX for D700/D3/D3s/D3x).



However, the flange distance is the same for both DX and FX, consequently the position of the AF sensor is the same, too. They're usually in the bottom of the mirror box, illuminated by a secondary mirror right behind the main mirror.



-- Markus

[/quote]

I understand that some may feel the positions of AF points may lack in certain models, but that was not the point of the discussion though.



The mirror box of APS-C cameras is as far as I know always a bit smaller that the mirror box of full frame cameras. But you might be right, and maybe the bottom of the APS-C box is exactly the same distance to the optical axis as that of the FF box in cameras.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283463536' post='2435']

Considering the current new price of 1800 € for a D700, personally I wouldn't buy one of almost a year old at a discount of only 100 €. I'd rather go for safe and buy the new one <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



I assume you mean the 24-120 (Nikkor) rather than the 24-105 (Canon) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]

Thank you Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Yes of course I meant the 24-120. Have you any idea of price? Where do you find a D700 for 1800€? Price around here are more like 2000! What prices do you see for the D300S? Vieux loup

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283466879' post='2441']

I understand that some may feel the positions of AF points may lack in certain models, but that was not the point of the discussion though.



The mirror box of APS-C cameras is as far as I know always a bit smaller that the mirror box of full frame cameras. But you might be right, and maybe the bottom of the APS-C box is exactly the same distance to the optical axis as that of the FF box in cameras.

[/quote]

Actually, the distance to the AF-module is the same (has to be the same). The mirror box itself may be a little smaller, at least, if you don't include the AF-module itself in the mirror box assembly.



Kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

I very humbly must admit that your discussion passes right over my head <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> but I appreciate that tidbits of your great knowledge help me get around the very fundamental choices I have to make before I can throw myself into the process of further learning. Markus, according to the photographer/salesman whos tries to sell me this lens, it is a predecessor to the 2,8 24-70. I don't think I can do much wrong by buying it at that price until I find the right lenses. But I will buy a prime/macro in the area 60 - 105. But first make a decision on the D300S or the D700! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> If you have websites that sell with good service and good prices, I would like to know them!

[mst]

Not Wim, but I hope you don't mind me answering instead <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283529721' post='2459']

Yes of course I meant the 24-120. Have you any idea of price?[/quote]



We won't know for sure until it's widely available, but it seems the prices will start just above 1000 EUR.



[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283529721' post='2459']

Where do you find a D700 for 1800€? Price around here are more like 2000!

[/quote]



Not quite, but almost 1800 EUR:



http://www.cameratools.nl/NID700-zoekartikel/Nikon%20D700%20Body%20(NL).html



I'm sure Wim has even better sources <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283529721' post='2459']

What prices do you see for the D300S?

[/quote]



Same dealer as above: 1199 EUR.



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283530809' post='2461']

Markus, according to the photographer/salesman whos tries to sell me this lens, it is a predecessor to the 2,8 24-70. I don't think I can do much wrong by buying it at that price until I find the right lenses.

[/quote]



Well, that is a creative way to put it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Seriously: yes, the 35-70/2.8 was Nikon's fast standard zoom in the 90s. That part is now played by the 24-70. However, if we're talking about predecessors, there is only one to the 24-70 IMO: the AF-S 28-70/2.8.



Don't expect wonders from the 35-70. Price seems to be ok and in line with other offerings I've seen. But IMO you'd be way better off with a AF-S DX 16-85 VR (if you decide to get the D300s). Not that fast, sure, but optically certainly superior and a lot larger focal range (especially at the short end). Sells for around 460 EUR in the Netherlands.



-- Markus

[Steinar1]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1283532432' post='2465']

Well, that is a creative way to put it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Seriously: yes, the 35-70/2.8 was Nikon's fast standard zoom in the 90s. That part is now played by the 24-70. However, if we're talking about predecessors, there is only one to the 24-70 IMO: the AF-S 28-70/2.8.



Don't expect wonders from the 35-70. Price seems to be ok and in line with other offerings I've seen. But IMO you'd be way better off with a AF-S DX 16-85 VR (if you decide to get the D300s). Not that fast, sure, but optically certainly superior and a lot larger focal range (especially at the short end). Sells for around 460 EUR in the Netherlands.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Thank you Markus, the D300s with the 16-85 seems to be the way to go for me now. What do you think of a 70-300 to accompany it? vieux loup