WA for FX ?

[chrisk]

what WA do you guys use and or recommend for the d700 ?
14-24 ? 17-35 ?

thanks in advance.

[sirhc55]

Use? The camera has not been released yet

If I get the D700 I will be using my Sigma 12-24mm

[chrisk]

well..there is also another FX dslr my dear friend...or have you forgotten the D3 already ? lol

[sirhc55]

I stand corrected. I misinterpreted your sentence

[gstark]

well..there is also another FX dslr my dear friend...or have you forgotten the D3 already ? lol

But the OP asked specifically about the D700. I think Chris's response was small and perfectly formed.

[chrisk]

pedantic bastards. lol

[sirhc55]

pedantic bastards. lol

Pedantic ”old” bastards, pleeeeezzzzzzeeeeee

[johnd]

Rooz, I use the 14-24 on my D3. It is an unbelievably good combination. Wide as and just sooooo sharp. I've mainly used it for architecture shots so far and I love the results.

Cheers
John

[Greg B]

If I had a D700, I would use the 14-24, if I had a 14-24.

I do have a 10-20, and if I had a D700, I would use the 10-20, which will be more like a 10-20 on a D700
and less like a 15-30 as it is on the D200.

[Greg B]

I stand corrected. I misinterpreted your sentence

You fell for that old trap of reading the actual words

[chrisk]

no polariser or ND filters for the 14-24 and the size of it...hmmm dunno about that one. i guess its the best optical choice but there are some drawbacks to it. john, do you find the size, lack of filter a big issue ?

which 10-20 are you referring to greg ? the sigma is DX lens.

[Reschsmooth]

The 17-35 is a great option and accepts 77mm filters. For 18mm of zoom, it is a heavy and bulky lens, but it balances well with the likes of a D200 + grip, so I imagine it would go well with the D700, unless you are a girl or from Melbourne.

[chrisk]

i was more leaning to the 17-35 for that reason Pat. its also a very useable range on the d300 aswell.

[Reschsmooth]

i was more leaning to the 17-35 for that reason Pat. its also a very useable range on the d300 aswell.

If you & I, respectively, go to the AW meetups, I am happy for you to prostrate yourself in front of the lens, or even use it?

[gstark]

which 10-20 are you referring to greg ? the sigma is DX lens.

But still able to be used on an FX body, albeit on either a low-res DX mode, or in FX mode with some vignetting.

And if you shoot at the pointy end of your aperture spectrum, the vignetting will be reduced too.

[chrisk]

true, but not really wanting to invest in a DX lens to be honest. if i did, it would be the tokina 11-16 anyway.

[johnd]

no polariser or ND filters for the 14-24 and the size of it...hmmm dunno about that one. i guess its the best optical choice but there are some drawbacks to it. john, do you find the size, lack of filter a big issue ?

Hi Rooz,

There is a way of getting a polariser or ND onto the 14-24. One of the guys on this forum has done it but I haven't tried it yet.
Evidently one of the adapters in the Cokin system slides snugly over the barrel of the 14-24 (just good luck) and enables you to use filters.
You could search the forum for details. To be perfectly honest though, I haven't used NDs and rarely use polarisers. If the lighting requires it I will bracket and HDR instead. One of these days I will get a Cokin system and start playing around with NDs, but not today.

Size isn't such an issue. The 14-24 is fairly big, but not much bigger than the 24-70 and smaller than the 80-400 which are the other lenses that are mostly on the camera.

Cheers
John

[chrisk]

thanks for the feedback mate, much appreciated.
i did a search on flickr and actually theres alot more info than i thought about filter adaptors.

[gstark]

I would be querying the usability of a polariser on the 14-24. At 24mm, its use would be marginal, with some clumping of the polarisation likely to occur. As you widen your FoV, this is only gong to get worse.

[chrisk]

woudl that same "phenomenon" occur with ND grads ?

[Killakoala]

I've been using a Sigma 12-24 on my F5 (which is technically FX) and it works a treat. There is really no need to use a polariser with it as it captures plenty of scattered light and the colours look great. (Except with B&W film )

When I finally get a D700, which I want to, I will still use the 12-24. I would prefer a Nikon 14-24 though and that will be my second purchase after the D700 comes out. The Sigma can go on E(scam)Bay.

[Grev]

I think someone made filters to fit on the 14-24. But anyway, I think it would just be a bit too wide for my liking on the D700, I think the 17-35 is a bit more all rounder.

[gstark]

woudl that same "phenomenon" occur with ND grads ?

I don't believe so: NDs - of any type - simply apply a colour filtration to the incoming light (frequency or wavelength of the light) whereas polarisers work based upon the inherent direction of the light (for want of a better way of describing this - light of a particular direction is blocked by the filter). The upshot of this is that because of the range of the field of view angle in wide angle lenses, the direction (angle) of the light will vary across the whole frame to an extent that it is visibly noticeable in your images.

Any such variation that you might see when using any colour based filter like a ND will be more due to elements of the image being brought into the image through distortion, rather than anything to do with the filter itself, or perhaps vignetting or intrusion of the filter's edges into the frame.