For lenses, you've got a few good options. The Zeiss ZF 35/2 is a major upgrade over the Nikon 35/2 AF-D (which is a decent lens, but not up to its 35/2 AI-S predecessor) and the 35/1.4 AI-S is excellent as well, although not as sharp as the Zeiss. Similarly the Zeiss ZF 50's are nice upgrades over the 50mm f1.4 AF-D, as is the Voigtlander 58/1.4 and the Nikkor 50 and 58 f1.2's. The Zeiss 50/1.4, Voigtlander 58/1.4 and Nikkor 50/1.2 are all reasonably priced.
The Voigtlander 125 you've got is stellar, I'm not sure it can be topped. And it sounds like you got a particularly good example of the usually unimpressive Sigma 24-70.l -Adam On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/18 Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Well, the camera certainly is not holding you back. There are some >> nice images in there. > > Thanks Bruce. > >> From your indications, you are using a Sigma, >> Voigtlander and Nikkor lenses. I would be curious to know your >> thoughts so far of the camera and lenses. > > The lenses. So far I have: > > Nikkor AF-D 35mm f2 > Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.4 > Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro > Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Macro APO Lanthar > > The Nikon 50 & 35mm are handy focal lengths & make for a relatively > compact lens/body combination. I've no experience with the FA 35mm f2, > so I can't compare, but the Nikkor is pretty soft @ f2 and distorts a > bit. but for what I use that lens for it's performance is acceptable. > Same with the 50, not as nice as the FA 50 f1.4, but usable. Stopped > down a bit, both lenses are fine. > > I have for a long time steered away from Sigma due to previous bad > experiences. But I couldn't afford to start out buying both the new > body & the Nikon equivalent 24-70mm f2.8. This forced me to consider > the Sigma. I gave it a good workout in the store & was convinced that > i had a good copy. Sharp, nice contrast etc. So I got it & haven't > regretted that purchase. The only thing I wished was that it had the > flare resistance of my Pentax glass. I have to pay extra attention > when shooting near bright light sources. > > The Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Macro I also have in Pentax mount & was the > one lens I really wanted to have access to on the Nikon. As it's out > of production & highly sort after, when one came up on eBay & was > going for a reasonable price I pounced on it. I recommend to anyone, > if you can find a copy & it won't cost you your first born or both > kidneys, get it. It is beautifully sharp & the bokeh is delicious. I > love this lens. > > The camera: > > It's solid, well built, big & relativity heavy. However I have carried > it around all day without any ill effects :-) > > It's nice to shoot looking through a decent VF again. On occasion I > have both the K20D & D700 with me when I'm out shooting & switching > from the D700 to the K20D, I really notice how small the K20D's VF > really is. The D700 UI is very nice. This is why I went with Nikon > over Canon. I just really like how Nikon's bodies handle & coming from > Pentax the re-learning curve isn't very steep. > > AF is snappy & I haven't noticed the "Penatx 2 step" style of focusing > (ie quick & dirty, then a final adjustment). Either it doesn't do it, > or I'm not noticing it because the Nikon screw drive AF is lower > pitched & less obvious. > > Metering is spot on in most situations. I'm finding it more accurate > than the K20D at any rate. > > Live view implementation is much better than the K20D. So much so that > I actually use it (the macro of the Viola was focused using LV). You > can zoom in without the image quality falling apart almost instantly. > Also the virtual horizon in live view (and in the VF) is a neat > feature. When I shoot at night I can't always see the horizon so this > is a useful feature. > > ISO & low noise performance live up to the hype & are my main reasons > for the purchase. With the K20D I always hesitated to shoot over ISO > 800, I would if I had no other choice, but preferred not to. With the > D700 I don't even think twice about going up to ISO 3200. Also as > mentioned previously for long exposure night shots, none of my Pentax > DSLR's have been able to come close to the low noise performance. > > Buying the D700 wasn't easy or frivolous decision. I didn't really > want to do it, but I'm starting to find a direction to my photography > and it's low light & long exposures. Unfortunately the current Pentax > technology just isn't up to satisfying my requirements. I'm also not > convinced that Samsung have enough experience in sensor design yet to > produce what I'm after. I hope I am proven wrong, and that Hoya Pentax > will do something special soon. > > Cheers, > > > Dave > >> Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 9:14:55 AM, you wrote: >> >> DS> G'day All, >> >> DS> So I stated the other day that I bought a Nikon D700. I've had it now >> DS> for a few weeks & thought I'd share 10 of my better shots for those >> DS> who are so inclined to look. >> >> DS> If you can handle Flickr's slideshows: >> >> DS> <http://flickr.com/photos/disavage/sets/72157607344500355/show/> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
