D700 12-24.....D300 10-20

[big pix]

I was quite happy with the D 300 and the 10-20 sigma....... then I purchased a D700 already had the 12-24......... so here are pix from both bodys and lens......... yes there is some difference with the PP but I am still setting up the D700 as I have only had it a little over 24 hours.....

D300 with the 10-20 mm Sigma


D700 With the 12-24 mm Sigma....... Birds in the sky

[ATJ]

Bernie,

Where were you in the zoom range for each? I'm guessing 10mm on the D300 and 12mm on the D700.

Edit: D'oh. I checked the Exif and yes, 10mm/12mm. I notice you had the D300 on ISO1000.

[big pix]

Bernie,

I notice you had the D300 on ISO1000.

........ Eagle eye........

I had been shooting a few birds in low flat light so 1000 iso

image here viewtopic.php?f=18&t=34353

I am now off to reset my cameras

[radar]

Good comparison Bernie, thanks for that. When you get a chance I would also be interested in how the 24mm tilt/shift performs on the D700 compared to your D300. No rush, just when you get a chance.

So that's what you spent your money on when you mentioned money spent before the PP goes further south

thanks,

André

[MATT]

This is not helping me talk myself out of the d700.

Nice comparison.

Thanks

MATT

[big pix]

Good comparison Bernie, thanks for that. When you get a chance I would also be interested in how the 24mm tilt/shift performs on the D700 compared to your D300. No rush, just when you get a chance.

So that's what you spent your money on when you mentioned money spent before the PP goes further south

thanks,

André

....... I have had the lens on and off both bodies side by side....... the difference is a bit like the 2 above, you get so much more with the FF body........ I will be doing some real test with said lens on the D700 as there is work to be done...... I am also setting up the D700 to give me the same out of camera results as the D300, bit of suck and see........

[gstark]

The difference is a bit like the 2 above, you get so much more with the FF body....

If the quoted EXIF is correct - 10mm on the D300, and 12mm on the D700 - then after allowing for the crop factor, it stands to reason that the FF would seem to give you more, as it is. You're really looking at something closer to 15mm vs 12mm.

[Richard Peters]

Did you have a filter on the 10-20? The D300 shot seems to have controlled the exposure better, almost as if a polariser was used?!

[MATT]

Sorry to drag up an old thread,....

big pix, would you say the 12-24 Sigma is a worthy acquisition?

I'm looking a for a wide as I sold off all the DX stuff and am rebuilding my kit.

I have 4 options as I see it,

Grab the Sigma 12-24 reasonably priced at around $1k
Garb the Nikon 14-24 not so reasonably priced at $2400
A second hand 17-35 is this wide enough?

or a cheap 17-35 tamron or similar.

The benefit is the center two are f2.8 but I want this for a wide option that will most likely be mainly used on a tripod.

Opinions?

MATT

[big pix]

the 10-20 on the D300 is quite wide. I found the lens to be quite good, but check your copy if you get one

the 12-24 is not quite as wide on the D300 as on a full frame camera body, but if you are thinking of getting a FF body go for the 12-24 Sigma and you have a lens that does not need changing

the Nikon 17-35 is also quite expensive being a 2.8

With wide angle lens I have found that the 18-70 kit lens at 18mm more than enough for most of the time using the D300 body. The wider lens also had its use, but only every now and then for the type of work I was shooting, which was construction work...... I now use the 24PC lens as a 3 shot pano, much better for my type of work

[MATT]

Thanks bp,

I have the D700 now. Jsut trying to convince myself I dont need a 14-24.

I think I grab the 12-24..

Regards
MATT

[Critter]

is it just me or does the D700 shot show slight banding of the sky colours that isn't there in the D300 shot?