hello, Heartkwt,
I think that you're right for the most part, the 80-200 AF-S D is a good, sharp lens but it's a bit slower to focus and doesn't include VR image stabilization like the newer models do. If you're on a budget, that's probably the best lens. The 70-200 AF-S G VR is known to vignette on full frame DSLRs, but if you want to use it on a DX DSLR (cropped sensor) you shouldn't have any problems. The new 70-200 AF-S G VR II is the latest addition, and adds a bit of heft to the lens. However, it doesn't vignette like it's predecessor, it offers the newest VR stabilization and is super quick to focus. If you can afford it, the new 70-200 is definitely the way to go.
Regarding the 24-85 and 24-70, they're both good, sharp lenses. However, the 24-70 offers a consistent aperture of f/2.8, while the 24-85 is a variable aperture lens of f/2.8-4. The 24-70 is regarded as part of Nikon's "Holy Trinity", which consists of the Nikkor 14-24, the 24-70 and finally the 70-200, all f/2.8 lenses. While the 24-70 doesn't offer the extra 15mm on the telephoto end that the 24-85 offers, I don't think that you'll miss it too much. The 24-70 is overall a sharper lens than the 24-85, but remember that it's much more pricey. I'd just recommend getting something like the 85mm 1.4 to substitute it, an extremely sharp portrait prime. Overall, I'd recommend going for the 24-70 over the 24-85 for its consistent aperture, plus it's a sharper lens.
Quote:
I am also confused about the 50mm as there are 2 models, 500mm 1.4 & 50 mm 1.8
I think that you mean the
50mm 1.4, not the 500mm! A 500mm 1.4 would be an EXTREMELY large, expensive lens!
Anyways, the difference is mainly that the 50mm 1.4 gives you a wider aperture of 2/3 of a stop. The 1.8 model is a bit sharper, but you'll have to deal with the loss of that extra aperture that you get with the 50 1.4. It's up to you if it's worth the extra money, if you mainly will shoot indoors and in low light with it, I think that it would be a good choice to go for the 1.4, but the 1.8 is still a good choice.
To answer your final question, about the difference between DX and FX formats (I'm assuming that you mean DX and FX lenses), they're both designed for different types of cameras. DX lenses are designed for DX cameras, which are cameras with an imaging sensor inside that isn't the full size of a 35mm strip of film. FX lenses are designed for FX (full frame) cameras, meaning that the sensor inside the camera is the same size as a piece of 35mm film. DX lenses are smaller and lighter as they're designed for the smaller DX sensors, and they won't work with FX cameras very well. FX lenses however, are both compatible with DX and FX cameras.
One point to note is that because the DX sensors are smaller, when you put on an FX lens it "crops" the field of view, taking only the centre part of the image that the lens forms. That's called the equivalent focal length. For instance, if you mount a 50mm FX lens on a DX camera body, it will give an equivalent focal length of 75mm as the sensor of DX cameras are smaller. To find the equivalent focal length of a lens on a DX camera, multiply its focal length by 1.5.
Generally, DX lenses are smaller, lighter and cheaper because since the performance in the corners of the lens and vignetting doesn't really matter since it will be cropped. Why you can't mount these DX lenses onto full frame cameras (well you can, but the performance won't be were good) is because the corner performance and vignetting will show. Your camera, the D700 is an FX camera, so try to only use FX lenses.
I hope that I helped,
-Evan
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
