Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question!

Here 15 of them

http://www.flickr.com …s/7215762389569​1711/show/

AdamLewis wrote in post #10386928
Also, for anyone whos afraid that the D700 doesnt have good servo performance, please see the follow two pictures...

maverick678 wrote in post #10387005
The 24-70mm is a spectacular lens and for all the glowing reviews about 14-24mm I don't think it's spectacular. I have sent the images to Nikon and they agreed it has to go back to them.

So maybe there is fault with your one particular lens. I wont rule that out at all. However, just because the specific copy you had was sub-par doesnt mean the lens as a whole is inferior in any way.

Do you have any real world examples?

No, I tested and put it in the box right away. I test the same way everytime I buy a lens, if it doesn't pass the easy test...too bad...ship it back.

AdamLewis wrote in post #10387077
So maybe there is fault with your one particular lens. I wont rule that out at all. However, just because the specific copy you had was sub-par doesnt mean the lens as a whole is inferior in any way.

Do you have any real world examples?

maverick678 wrote in post #10387089
No, I tested and put it in the box right away. I test the same way everytime I buy a lens, if it doesn't pass the easy test...too bad...ship it back.

lol seriously? If it cant take an A+ picture of an oatmeal canister in crappy lighting, you send it back? Im sorry to hear that

Even a cheap lens can take an A+ picture why can't a $2,000 lens ?. Does it have to take a $5,000 jewelry to make it great ?.

Don't be sorry...it's my money.

AdamLewis wrote in post #10387161
lol seriously? If it cant take an A+ picture of an oatmeal canister in crappy lighting, you send it back? Im sorry to hear that

maverick678 wrote in post #10387185
Even a cheap lens can take an A+ picture why can't a $2,000 lens ?. Does it have to take a $5,000 jewelry to make it great ?.

Don't be sorry...it's my money.

I could care less if a cheap lens takes good pictures of oatmeal. I care if it takes good pictures when I actually use it!

AdamLewis wrote in post #10387161
lol seriously? If it cant take an A+ picture of an oatmeal canister in crappy lighting, you send it back? Im sorry to hear that

To be fair, he's had a few copies and they behaved similarly. Could be that those copies were all bad. But honestly, what really are the chances that the few copies he's tested and my copy, especially before I sent it to Nikon are "bad"?

I've corroborated my findings with Perm and Perm loves the 14-24, so my assumption was that my lens is fine. That said, I am by no means super impressed with the lens, but I think I just bought into the hype a little too much. When I was thinking about switching, the 14-24 was a lens I HAD TO have after doing my research. Expectations were super duper high. Perhaps that was my mistake.

My 14-24 is calibrated and I use it when I need it and it does the job. Close up at f2.8, using the outer points on my D3 or D700? Not so impressive. But I don't anticipate shooting this way so it stopped being a concern.

Well I could care less how you use it.. I decide my own whether a lens or a camera is worthy for me...everybody is different. As I've said even Nikon agreed with me. YMMV.

AdamLewis wrote in post #10387192
I could care less if a cheap lens takes good pictures of oatmeal. I care if it takes good pictures when I actually use it!

I only had two copies, the first one was terrible....f/4 not even sharp .

nicksan wrote in post #10387196
To be fair, he's had a few copies and they behaved similarly. Could be that those copies were all bad. But honestly, what really are the chances that the few copies he's tested and my copy, especially before I sent it to Canon are "bad"?

I've corroborated my findings with Perm and Perm loves the 14-24, so my assumption was that my lens is fine. That said, I am by no means super impressed with the lens, but I think I just bought into the hype a little too much. When I was thinking about switching, the 14-24 was a lens I HAD TO have after doing my research. Expectations were super duper high. Perhaps that was my mistake.

My 14-24 is calibrated and I use it when I need it and it does the job. Close up at f2.8, using the outer points on my D3 or D700? Not so impressive. But I don't anticipate shooting this way so it stopped being a concern.

Nick...I know you still like Canon

nicksan wrote in post #10387196
To be fair, he's had a few copies and they behaved similarly. Could be that those copies were all bad. But honestly, what really are the chances that the few copies he's tested and my copy, especially before I sent it to Canon are "bad"?

There's always the 16-35 f/4 VR.

maverick678 wrote in post #10387304
Nick...I know you still like Canon

Plus 1!

maverick678 wrote in post #10387304
Nick...I know you still like Canon

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

jdizzle wrote in post #10387438
There's always the 16-35 f/4 VR.

this is the lens I definitely will have...

I want a 3 lens Lineup...I already have the 50mm f/1.4D, then this 16-35mm f/4 next, then the zoom... (I am really torn between the 70-300mm VRII and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII). I am thinking I might not be able to justify the 3x price of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII . I hardly ever shoot indoor sports/events whatsoever with a tele...

on the other hand, with a teleconverter the 70-200mm would become 140-400 f/5.6... which is nice to have I think hehe

my 1st ever Sunset with my new nikon setup