i hate making these, but 14-24 or 17-55?

I've heard great things about that camera. Word is that it's got an amazing dynamic range, is this so?

it is so. it's actually a really quirky low-light camera. i just got it yesterday, and i'm still figuring a lot of the custom **** out. but it's a sweet camera, i'm stoked.
 
Its a perfect range for FX. I cant see myself using 24-70 on DX... I will have to swap lenses every 30 seconds :wink:

Again as I said if you want the entire range covered this is the way to go. I have the 70-200 now and plan on the 14-24 and the 24-70 to be my next 2 lenses.
 
i find the 70-200 a bit too tight on a cropped sensor for what i do. the 24-70 would be nice, but i'd still need something a bit wider. so it makes more sense to me to keep my mid-range primes and get a wider zoom.
 
Again as I said if you want the entire range covered this is the way to go. I have the 70-200 now and plan on the 14-24 and the 24-70 to be my next 2 lenses.

But what is "entire range"? :) Totally different things on DX and FX.
I agree that 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 (and long tele) are great for FX.

But for my use it doesnt cut it at all on DX. 14-24 is not wide enough as a wideangle, 24-70 is not wide enough as a normal, 70-200 is too tight, becomes more like a long tele. So IMHO this range on DX is totally messed up at least for me.

Personally what i use so far is 10.5, 17-55 and 200 micro. This suits me perfectly.
I would think that for more "i need all the range" approach on DX 10-16 tokina, 17-55 and 70-200 with maybe 60 micro thrown in. It still has gaps and holes, but IMHO would be more useful.
 
sa-weet. my mbd10 and 17-55 finally effing got in. d300 + grip is quite the beast. love it.

lens seems to be a pretty good one. lots of contrast and clarity.

finally got rid of my nikon strap, too. finding a visually-suitable strap is tough. hahah.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top