Nikon D700 official owners/users thread, anything related to the D700

  • Thread starter Thread starter TG.
  • Start date Start date
The23rdman said:
Yoohoo!

I've just joined the club too. I was a very short-term member of the D3 club, but that was too exclusive for my tastes (and we need a new boiler) so I've downgraded. some downgrade! I actually prefer the feel of the D700 and like the ability to go gripped or not.

Like many others I'm trying to figure out what I need lens wise now...
Click to expand...

:wave:

You don't need any. Keep away from the classifieds :bat::lol:
 
I damn well do. I take it you're still after an 85 1.4 too? ;)
 
The23rdman said:
Like many others I'm trying to figure out what I need lens wise now...
Click to expand...

Not a lot to be honest, but the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 135, 85, 50, 35, 24 should be a starting point :D
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
Not a lot to be honest, but the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 135, 85, 50, 35, 24 should be a starting point :D
Click to expand...

Did you mean the 14-24, the 12-24 is a DX lens however it will work full frame from around 18mm.
 
Dman said:
Not a lot to be honest, but the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 135, 85, 50, 35, 24 should be a starting point :D
Click to expand...

God help my wife. ;)

24-70 is out of the question so I'm deciding between the 35-70 and 28-70. 50 f/1.4 is a given - I use that all the time already. Now, the real problem is whether I go for an 85 1.4 or 70/80-200...
 
The23rdman said:
God help my wife. ;)

24-70 is out of the question so I'm deciding between the 35-70 and 28-70. 50 f/1.4 is a given - I use that all the time already. Now, the real problem is whether I go for an 85 1.4 or 70/80-200...
Click to expand...

Personally I've decided on a set of primes rather than the 24-70 - a 24, 35 and 85 would come in at about the same as a 24-70 s/h, substitute a two-ring 80-200 for the 85 and you'd still have £100 or so to play with....
 
Depends what you shoot, Graham. I shoot a lot of kids in low light so the 85mm is very appealing.
 
The23rdman said:
Depends what you shoot, Graham. I shoot a lot of kids in low light so the 85mm is very appealing.
Click to expand...

Of course, I was merely illustrating how the money could be invested. You know that you'll end up with the full set eventually, don't you? :naughty:
 
The23rdman said:
Depends what you shoot, Graham. I shoot a lot of kids in low light so the 85mm is very appealing.
Click to expand...

I have the 85 and the 80-200. I wouldn't part with either of them for portraits, the 85 speaks for itself, they don't call it the cream machine for nothing. As for the 80-200, it's possibly my favourite portrait lens as long as the light isn't too low.

Get both.
 
I'm a little limited fund wise for now. Shooting kids I tend to need something a little wider more often than longer so I'll probably try and pick up a decent 35-70 or 28-70 first along with the obligatory 50 1.4.

I do see 80-200's going for very little now. Is the push/pull as good optically as the later zooms?
 
The23rdman said:
I'm a little limited fund wise for now. Shooting kids I tend to need something a little wider more often than longer so I'll probably try and pick up a decent 35-70 or 28-70 first along with the obligatory 50 1.4.

I do see 80-200's going for very little now. Is the push/pull as good optically as the later zooms?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but having only ever used the twin ring I could be wrong. There's not a lot between the 80-200 twin ring and the 70-200 though.

I don't like the 24-70 for portraits other than studio stuff. I tend to go a bit longer, the 135 is on my radar too now.
 
I have to have something wide for shooting in homes. Needs must 'n' all that.
 
I Find Mr. Rockwell's site contradictory. Am I the only one??

(Assuming of course Uncle Ken is Ken Rockwell???)
 
The23rdman said:
I'm a little limited fund wise for now. Shooting kids I tend to need something a little wider more often than longer so I'll probably try and pick up a decent 35-70 or 28-70 first along with the obligatory 50 1.4.
Click to expand...

MPB have a 35-70 2.8 at a good price (£149):

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...used-nikon-fit-lenses/nikon-af-35-70mm-f/2.8/

also a 24-85 f2.8-4 for £199 which isn't bad.

I picked up the AF-S 24-85 f3.5-4.5 from there yesterday, should be here soon - found I was missing the convenience of a zoom when out and about so a cheap & small one has been added to the prime arsenal :cool:
 
So it is. I never zoomed in. :D
 
Couple of scratches on the front element though.
 
I use the 80-200 and really like it. I was umming and arring about upgrading to the 70-200 vr 2 but I think that I probably will especially now that I am VAT registered and everything suddenly got cheaper :lol:
 
The 35-70 has gone. :(



I bought it! :D
 
It's a risk free gamble at that money.
 
I just bought a brand new 85mm afd f1.4 from Amazon for £530 to use with my D700. This lens, a 15 year old design has just won prime lens of the year by AP
 
icnoble said:
I just bought a brand new 85mm afd f1.4 from Amazon for £530 to use with my D700. This lens, a 15 year old design has just won prime lens of the year by AP
Click to expand...

Really ? That's a great price ! :clap:
 
Anyone using Zeiss glass on their D700? I ruled out the 85mm f/1.4 initially due to it being manual focus, but I've read it's optically superior to the Nikon 85mm D version.
 
Well the 35-70 has turned up and I'm very much underwhelmed with it. I think it'll go straight back. :(
 
Ah well at least you purchased from a dealer. I guess the chances of a £150 lens in that zoom range that would blow your socks off are pretty minute.
 
I'm starting to realise that believing the hype on tinterweb is pointless. This lens has a great rep and to be fair it's okay stopped down a bit, but who buys an f/2.8 to stop it down? vignettes like something else at 35mm too.

Although this could just be a carp copy.
 
Last edited:
hi people,

im new to this forum and i have a question to ask. well, i own a D700 for quite some time now. and im very very pleased with it. have served me well and the quality of the photos are just brilliant. one thing that i noticed recently that there's some small dusts inside some of my lenses. so i decided to do a test shots to see if the dusts which is stuck inside the lenses would affect the image quality. surprisingly, the dusts inside the lens makes no difference on image quality. but what bothers me now is there's now dusts inside the sensor. so i did all the procedures to check on the dusts on the sensor and blow it off with my trusty blower. it did scare off some of the dusts, but there are still some stubborn ones which still manage to stay put. its not visible if i use large apertures..say F1.8 but when i went above F9, its very visible. well this bothers me so much since i love to capture landscape shots.

so i watched a few 'self-cleaning-method' videos on youtube, but im not sure whether to do it myself or i should send it to a shop for cleaning.

the question here is, should i clean it myself? or should i send it to the shop for cleaning? and if i send it to the shop, how much will it cost me? thank you in advance guys.
 
The23rdman said:
I'm starting to realise that believing the hype on tinterweb is pointless. This lens has a great rep and to be fair it's okay stopped down a bit, but who buys an f/2.8 to stop it down? vignettes like something else at 35mm too.

Although this could just be a carp copy.
Click to expand...
suprised at that dean. my 28-70mm nikon(not the beast) is ok not 5 star but it only cost me £40 delivered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top