Nikon D700

[mjreynolds82]

Hi There! I'm just in the process of upgrading my Nikon D90 to a D300.

Can you recommend a good collection of lens? I'm currently thinking of either:

Nikkor 14-22mm
or
Tokina - 16-28mm. There's obviously a price difference involved, but have been told that Tokina is just as good in terms of performance as that of a Nikkor, and weighs less.

[bluffname]

Hi There! I'm just in the process of upgrading my Nikon D90 to a D300.

Can you recommend a good collection of lens? I'm currently thinking of either:

Nikkor 14-22mm
or
Tokina - 16-28mm. There's obviously a price difference involved, but have been told that Tokina is just as good in terms of performance as that of a Nikkor, and weighs less.


Hi, Welcome to SgShoot.

Nothing beats actually testing out the lens to touch and feel and also see the results. Since these are costly lenses, it's worth to rent first to see which really fits your needs. If cannot rent, at least find a friendly shop that lets you shoot a few sample shots.

eg When I wanted to buy the 80-400, a lot of reviews said it was too slow and not suitable for moving subjects. But I was planning to use it to shoot stage performances, which have lots of moving subjects. When I rented to try, I fell in love with it or, as we sometimes say, "kena poisoned".

During the search I also tested out a Sigma (forgot which one but similar zoom range) - shot a few pixs at a shop. I did not like the feel of the lens, even though it was sharp, focused faster, lighter, costs much less, etc. Also, the colours were not as good as those of the Nikon.

And this is something that we need to be careful about when reading reviews, such as those by Ken Rockwell. Apart from what the reviewers say, pay attention also to what they DO NOT SAY. Eg I find that Ken Rockwell talks a lot about sharpness, distortion, build quality etc, but seldom about colour / contrast of a lens. So a lens may be just as good in terms of sharpness but lose out in other areas.

Also, the D300 is a DX format camera and the 14-24 is an FX format lens. Are you buying to be kiasu in case next time you switch to FX format camera? Or should you buy a cheaper DX lens and "cross the bridge when you reach it" rather than buy something that you may not need for another 2 or 3 years?

All that said, I know the Nikon 14-24 is an excellent lens, although costly. Never tried it personally but saw some pixs taken during Vesak by KopiOKaya. Sorry dunno about the Tokina but as you say, the reviews are good.

[KopiOkaya]

Both the Nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 16-28 are FX lenses. After using Tokina lenses for more than 20 years, I personally find their lenses tend to be soft. Worst of all, the softness varies from copy to copy, some quite jiak lat. Almost all of their wide and ultra-wide angle lenses have CA problem. You may want to test different copies before buying.

I have used the Nikon 14-24 on a DX format DSLR and I must say I am blown away by its image quality and sharpness. This lens is better than any of the Tokina lenses I have owned or tried. Color and contrast are excellent too. Of course, its price is a bit too much to bear. :coolnod:

[mjreynolds82]

Thanks guys foir the replies! Felt a bit stupid after realising I meant D700 instead of D300! Not quite sure how I managed to confuse 2 different cameras - So yes I'm aware both these lenses are meant for FX format cameras such as D700.

I managed to as you mentioned take a few sample shops in a friendly shop I went into in Funan. My first impressions were were good of both lenses (The Nikkor 14-24 was notably heavier), however in this situation it hard to know the true quality the lens will deliver in different shooting situations.

There is of course a cost difference of around S$900, which is a lot of course. At the end of the day i'm thinking it's more worthwhile to spend that little bit extra if i'm going to the trouble of upgrading to the D700 anyway.

As i mentioned i'm upgrading from a D90, and had considered a D7000, but after some consideration thought if i were to upgrade it makes more sense to make a "bigger jump" in the long run especially with ambitions to go more "pro".

In additonal to either the Nikkor 14-24mm or Tokina 16-28mm, I was thinking of buying a 50mm f1.4G to complete my set of lens.

My primary uses are travel photography, some portraits/Studio photography, architecture and other "day to day" shooting.

I really would like a wide angle, and normal lens for portrait. I will miss a telephoto lens, but think these are sufficient for my current needs. If you have any other suggestions given my main uses would be all ears, sorry for the long winded post! :coolnod:

[bluffname]

In additonal to either the Nikkor 14-24mm or Tokina 16-28mm, I was thinking of buying a 50mm f1.4G to complete my set of lens.

Do you really NEED at 50mm 1.4? A lot of people consider this, or at least the cheaper 1.8, to be a "must have" lens. Personally I have one - an old manual focus version - but hardly ever touch it. If I do use it, it is more because I feel bad the lens is sitting there, rather than because I need to use it. Especially with high ISO capabilities these days, the need for a 1.4 or 1.8 lens gets less and less.

I suggest you get the wide angle first and, after shooting for some time you feel "incomplete" without a 50mm, then go get one. I would think a telephoto zoom like the 70-300 VR will be more useful in extending your range and the type of photography that you can do. A lot of pixs just cannot be taken without a long telephoto. Again, shoot with what you have first and see if you miss a telephoto before buying. Personally I find a telephoto zoom useful even for regular "walking around" type of shots.

I have one friend who refuses to buy any lens longer than approx 80mm - because he says his "best" pictures are taken around that range. So recently, he upgraded by buying a better lens of the same focal length, rather than a lens that offers a different range. But to me, his "best" pictures are rather boring. And once, he went to Sg Buloh Wetland Reserve and posted on FB some pixs of tiny birds in the distance :rofl: