Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: thomashoven on January 20, 2009, 04:34:11 pm
-
What lens?
Availability of a good & reasonably compact normal zoom lens (28 - 70 mm minimum) governs my choice of camera. 3 alternatives I consider:
1. Sony A900 to get the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8
2. Canon 5D MKII to get the 24-105mm f/4L IS (Alternative the 24-70mm f/2.8L)
3. Nikon D700 to get what versatile and reasonable normal zoom starting at 28 mm or wider?
The Nikon D700 has features I appreciate that the Canon 5D MkII and Sony A900 doesn't, but I don't know about a good zoom similar to what Canon and Sony has. Cost is not a major issue. Versatility, quality and size is.
I am primarily looking for lens experiences, not camera body tips. Anyone out there that knows about a good zoom for Nikon full frames? Is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED the best choice? How does it compare to the Canon and Zeiss lenses mentioned above? What about Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8 - 4? The Nikkor 24 - 120 f/3.5 - 5.6 has received some less good reviews and is not considered.
Presently, I own a cheaper Nikon SLR with a disaster of a zoom lens (optically and mechanically). This will be discarded. An older Canon compact has been great on picture quality (considering what type of camera it is) and has taken extreme beating over years without failing. That's an argument for Canon.
Thomas
-
Have used a 28-80 nikon for over 4 years, great lens, not very compact but the quality is outstanding. Peter
-
What lens?
Availability of a good & reasonably compact normal zoom lens (28 - 70 mm minimum) governs my choice of camera. 3 alternatives I consider:
1. Sony A900 to get the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8
2. Canon 5D MKII to get the 24-105mm f/4L IS (Alternative the 24-70mm f/2.8L)
3. Nikon D700 to get what versatile and reasonable normal zoom starting at 28 mm or wider?
The Nikon D700 has features I appreciate that the Canon 5D MkII and Sony A900 doesn't, but I don't know about a good zoom similar to what Canon and Sony has. Cost is not a major issue. Versatility, quality and size is.
I am primarily looking for lens experiences, not camera body tips. Anyone out there that knows about a good zoom for Nikon full frames? Is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED the best choice? How does it compare to the Canon and Zeiss lenses mentioned above? What about Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8 - 4? The Nikkor 24 - 120 f/3.5 - 5.6 has received some less good reviews and is not considered.
Presently, I own a cheaper Nikon SLR with a disaster of a zoom lens (optically and mechanically). This will be discarded. An older Canon compact has been great on picture quality (considering what type of camera it is) and has taken extreme beating over years without failing. That's an argument for Canon.
Thomas
Take a look at the Tamron 28-75/f2.8, on the whole I'm not a fan of zoom lenses but I really like this one, its wonderfully compact and light, easily pocketable. IQ is excellent even wide open, definitely on a par with the last generation of equivalent Nikkor and the price is a bargain too.
PS. The Tamron is available in all different mounts as well.
-
1. Sony A900 to get the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8
As a former Canon shooter, who shot with the 24-70 f/2.8L and also the 24-105 f/4L IS, and currently shooting with the A900+CZ24-70, I can vouch for the quality of the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar in the Alpha mount. The Zeiss is head and shoulders better than the Canon for corner to corner quality on Full-frame.
The downside to the Zeiss is that it is not weather-proofed like the Canon lens, although I personally would break out the rain cover than rely on the weather-proof-ness of a $1000+ lens.
Obviously, only on the Sony mount is the 24-70 f/2.8 stabilized.
-
Bjorn Rorslett has a great, and quite comprehensive, series of Nikon lens reviews. You might visit his site and look ones in the range you're interested in:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
Click on the link above, then go to the "Lenses" link on the left hand side.
Lisa
-
The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is quite respectable. If you have a hankering for the Nikon camera, I would go with that unless you really need a smaller lens.
-
There does appear to be a problem here, no doubt due to the fact that Nikon has been concentrating on DX lenses for the past few years. It's a pity they can't repeat the performance of the excellent 14-24/2.8 at greater focal lengths.
I've already got the 14-24/2.8. I'm reluctant to duplicate focal lengths that I already have in the Canon mount, unless they are significantly better lenses. (My 14-24/2.8 is significantly better than my Canon-mount Sigma 15-30). I'm not keen on the 24-70/2.8 because it doesn't have VR and I already have the Canon 24-105/F4 IS, which I think is probably a more useful lens because it has IS and has a greater range.
I've considered getting the Canon 70-200/F4 IS, but never got around to it. I would therefore consider the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR as a useful addition to my lens repertoire, but I wonder if this lens is as good as the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS or the lighter and therefore preferrable Canon 70-200/F4 IS. Bjorn makes a few criticisms of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 on the FX format, although on balance it gets the thumbs up.
I'm surprised that at F2.8 it's no sharper than at F22, at 70mm and 200mm, but maybe that's also the case with the Canon 70-200/2.8. It's times like this when I wish there were really thorough MTF tests available along the lines of Photodo, but with charts for a few more f stops than F8 and full aperture.
I might just settle for the 14-24/2.8 and an el cheapo Nikkor 50/1.4. For all other focal lengths I would use my Canon gear.
-
What lens?
I am primarily looking for lens experiences, not camera body tips. Anyone out there that knows about a good zoom for Nikon full frames? Is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED the best choice? How does it compare to the Canon and Zeiss lenses mentioned above? What about Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8 - 4? The Nikkor 24 - 120 f/3.5 - 5.6 has received some less good reviews and is not considered.
Thomas
This one is actually a pretty obvious answer IMO - the Nikon 24-70 is an *excellent* lens - it is not perfect (it's weaker at 24mm than I'd like it to be, in the corners), but in the rest of the range, particularly from about 30mm on up, it is about as good as it gets for a zoom, and quite competitive with many prime lenses, even beating some of them in terms of sharpness. One doesn't usually hear about it outside of the Nikon user community (where it is very highly regarded by most every respected Nikon lens reviewer) because the (justly famous) 14-24 gets all the press and attention, but the 24-70 is one heck of a lens and you'd be hard pressed to find a lens in that zoom range that's better - the only competition is the Sony/Zeiss 24-70, and there it's more a matter of subtle trade-offs in terms of which image quality parameters matter more for you (the Nikkor, for example, has considerably better bokeh/OOF rendering than the Sony/Zeiss). Research the various Nikon reviewers and perhaps rent one through one of the online lens rental sites and see for yourself - the latter being the best way to evaluate this sort of thing.
-m
-
Too bad you didn't buy the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 yesterday. The price increases went into effect today. Bummer.
-
This one is actually a pretty obvious answer IMO - the Nikon 24-70 is an *excellent* lens - it is not perfect (it's weaker at 24mm than I'd like it to be, in the corners),
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
the 24-70 is one heck of a lens and you'd be hard pressed to find a lens in that zoom range that's better - the only competition is the Sony/Zeiss 24-70,
The Sony/Zeiss will also have the benefit of the anti-shake sensor in all Sony DSLRs. The Nikkor 24-70 has no VR.
Now, I know the Canon 24-70/2.8 does not have IS, also, but we expect more as technology progresses.
-
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
I wonder if you read about that or did a testing by your own.
I have both Nikkor Zoom lenses 14-24 and 24-70 and there is nothing soft in the corners.
I hope you don´t mean shooting a brick wall at f2.8. This has nothing to do with photography.
Switching from Canon last year at least only these two lenses are worth the trouble of selling and buying.
-
I am primarily looking for lens experiences, not camera body tips. Anyone out there that knows about a good zoom for Nikon full frames? Is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED the best choice? How does it compare to the Canon and Zeiss lenses mentioned above? What about Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8 - 4? The Nikkor 24 - 120 f/3.5 - 5.6 has received some less good reviews and is not considered.
The most rigorous lens test I know of are those performed by the French magazine Chasseur d'Image. Recently they have been testing as a combo with a body.
Their Jan issue had a comparison of all the pro zooms for different mounts:
- The Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 on the D700 got the best absolute mark,
- Followed closely by the Canon 24-70 f2.8
- The Sony Zeiss on the A900 was a rather distant third. Their comment was that it was excellent on the A700, but clearly weaker than both Nikon and Canon offerings in the corners when used on the A900.
Another important downside of the Zeiss deisgn compared to both Nikon and Canon is that the lens hood is mounted on the central barrel that moves when zooming in and out. On the Nikon and Canon, the hood is fixed and the front element moves relative to the hood so as to offer more flare protection in the long end, a truly brilliant design.
Sample variations might impact a bit, but there is no doubt that the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is one of the very best mid-range zoom ever produced.
I personnally own the lens, and its image quality is excellent, but I hadly ever use it. I might in fact never have used it after the first month. I tend to prefer lighter and smaller primes but the image quality is very hard to distinghuish. I keep it because it came be really handy in some situations but it is my least used lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can add my voice to the chorus in favor of the 24-70 f2.8 - it's one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, and that's on a D3x (which is very hard on lenses, because it's both full-frame and high-resolution). The 24-70 is not a small lens, and it has no VR, but it is clearly the sharpest zoom I have used across 20 years and multiple systems (I don't yet own the 14-24). The only lenses I've used (out of an eclectic bunch that by no means includes everything out there - notably no exotic long glass, and few small-format non-macro primes) that compare favorably in sharpness are some of the Zeiss primes for Hasselblad and perhaps a macro lens or two. It's clearly sharper than the Canon 24-105 f4 L, to name a fairly comparable lens I'm familiar with.
-Dan
-
I wonder if you read about that or did a testing by your own.
I read about it a couple of posts ago, by NashvilleMike, to quote: the Nikon 24-70 is an *excellent* lens - it is not perfect (it's weaker at 24mm than I'd like it to be, in the corners)
Nevertheless, many lenses are soft in the corners, especially at wide apertures, so I can forgive that. It's the lack of VR that stops me buying it, because this is the sort of lens I would use on my 'soon to be delivered' D700 as a 'walk around'.
I hope you don´t mean shooting a brick wall at f2.8. This has nothing to do with photography.
So shooting a brick wall at Pompei or at the ancient Pyramids of Egypt, or at Angkor Wat has nothing to do with photography? I didn't know that.
-
this is the sort of lens I would use on my 'soon to be delivered' D700 as a 'walk around'.
Have I read that correctly, you have a D700 on order???
Or is it "soon" like in "in some distant future - probably never at the earliest"?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have I read that correctly, you have a D700 on order???
Or is it "soon" like in "in some distant future - probably never at the earliest"?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I'll get the D700 in a day or so. It's ordered. On the strength of their 14-24/2.8 lens, Nikon have succeeded in persuading me to buy a Nikon body, but that's as far as it goes at present. The partnership is now a D700 and Canon 50D, instead of a 5D and 50D .
-
I read about it a couple of posts ago, by NashvilleMike, to quote:
Nevertheless, many lenses are soft in the corners, especially at wide apertures, so I can forgive that. It's the lack of VR that stops me buying it, because this is the sort of lens I would use on my 'soon to be delivered' D700 as a 'walk around'.
So shooting a brick wall at Pompei or at the ancient Pyramids of Egypt, or at Angkor Wat has nothing to do with photography? I didn't know that.
Ray,
In your usual style you take comments out of context and you use a particularly selective style whilst doing that...
1. That the 24-70 weak link according to the poster is the corners at 24mm does not mean that they are 'soft' not does this mean they are softer than the competition. (BTW I had limited exposure to the lens but I find its a spectacular one for its class with its weaker point being some larger than 'usual' field curvature at some focal lengths). It would have been better if you had not commented at all since you have nothing to add lacking personal experience with this or the competitor lenses. Instead you just generalised making an equally invalid general statement about Nikon lenses..
2. Yes, shooting brick walls at f2.8 with an f2.8 lens in Pompei or any place in the world has little to do with photography. Hint: f2.8 plays an important role in the previous sentence...Still the 24-70 performs as good as any competitive lens (probably better) even at that test.
Sometimes it looks to me like you're posting just to increase your already huge posting rate in this forum.
PS. To the OP: The Nikon 24-70 is considered by most seasoned Nikon reviewers and prominent pros to be an excellent lens, marginally better than its predecessor the 28-70 (nicknamed The Beast) which was already an excellent lens. Bjorn Rosrslett includes it in his Best-of-the-Best list of Nikkor optics with the adjective 'state of the art'. If you need to trust Bjorn or Ray I would advise you to trust the former.
-
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
Curious. What is your source for that? These reviews are pretty consistent with other experiences including my own:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
-
I read about it a couple of posts ago, by NashvilleMike, to quote:
NashvillMike posted ONE experience. Your statement was that Nikon lenses in general had an issue with edge sharpness. So what was your source?
-
Ray,
In your usual style you take comments out of context and you use a particularly selective style whilst doing that...
1. That the 24-70 weak link according to the poster is the corners at 24mm does not mean that they are 'soft' not does this mean they are softer than the competition. (BTW I had limited exposure to the lens but I find its a spectacular one for its class with its weaker point being some larger than 'usual' field curvature at some focal lengths). It would have been better if you had not commented at all since you have nothing to add lacking personal experience with this or the competitor lenses. Instead you just generalised making an equally invalid general statement about Nikon lenses..
2. Yes, shooting brick walls at f2.8 with an f2.8 lens in Pompei or any place in the world has little to do with photography. Hint: f2.8 plays an important role in the previous sentence...Still the 24-70 performs as good as any competitive lens (probably better) even at that test.
Sometimes it looks to me like you're posting just to increase your already huge posting rate in this forum.
PS. To the OP: The Nikon 24-70 is considered by most seasoned Nikon reviewers and prominent pros to be an excellent lens, marginally better than its predecessor the 28-70 (nicknamed The Beast) which was already an excellent lens. Bjorn Rosrslett includes it in his Best-of-the-Best list of Nikkor optics with the adjective 'state of the art'. If you need to trust Bjorn or Ray I would advise you to trust the former.
You seem to be so sensitive and so vulnerable, you've blown my comments out of all proprtion. As I've already mentioned, a bit of softness in the corners, especially at the short end is to be expected. The Canon 24-70 might be no different. The major weakness for me is that the lens does not have VR. I will also add that, after looking at Bjorn's site, I see soft corners as a weakness in quite a few Nikkor lenses. There are a number of lenses that get excellent results on the DX format but are a bit lacking on full frame, just are there are Canon lenses in the same category.
You should understand, I'm in the situation where I would not be interested in any Nikkor lens unless it was substantially better than the Canon full frame equivalent, which the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 clearly is. Even though the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 might be the optical equal of the Canon 24-70/2.8, it needs to be better for me to consider it. I'm not in the process of swapping Nikkor lenses for Canon lenses. I buy Nikkor lenses only because they are clearly better in some respect than the Canon equivalent.
-
You seem to be so sensitive and so vulnerable, you've blown my comments out of all proprtion. As I've already mentioned, a bit of softness in the corners, especially at the short end is to be expected. The Canon 24-70 might be no different. The major weakness for me is that the lens does not have VR. I will also add that, after looking at Bjorn's site, I see soft corners as a weakness in quite a few Nikkor lenses. There are a number of lenses that get excellent results on the DX format but are a bit lacking on full frame, just are there are Canon lenses in the same category.
You should understand, I'm in the situation where I would not be interested in any Nikkor lens unless it was substantially better than the Canon full frame equivalent, which the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 clearly is. Even though the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 might be the optical equal of the Canon 24-70/2.8, it needs to be better for me to consider it. I'm not in the process of swapping Nikkor lenses for Canon lenses. I buy Nikkor lenses only because they are clearly better in some respect than the Canon equivalent.
Ray I know what I'm reading. I might not be a native English speaker but I think I have a good enough grasp of yourlanguage not to blow your comments out of all proportion. I'm also not known to take comments out of context, at least nobody else has accused me of doing that, something that cannot be said about you. I stand by my comments, so please do the proper thing and either stand by yours or correct what you have said.
Nobody asked in this thread about your particular needs. I wouldn't give a dime about the situation you're in regarding your particular lens selection criteria. The OP asked about opinions on midrange lenses, you made misleading and out of place comments.
-
NashvillMike posted ONE experience. Your statement was that Nikon lenses in general had an issue with edge sharpness. So what was your source?
Browsing on the internet. Nikon have had years of producing lenses for the DX format. Even on the Nikon website in Australia, there's a section for DX lenses but no section for FX lenses. Whenever one looks at a lens specification, there's some confusion as to whether the lens is really an FX lens. When I look at the specifications of the new Nikkor 50/1.4, I see an image circle of 35mm mentioned. What's going on here? The image circle for full frame is 44mm. I'll see if I can find the reference and post it as an edit.
-
Browsing on the internet. Nikon have had years of producing lenses for the DX format. Even on the Nikon website in Australia, there's a section for DX lenses but no section for FX lenses. Whenever one looks at a lens specification, there's some confusion as to whether the lens is really an FX lens. When I look at the specifications of the new Nikkor 50/1.4, I see an image circle of 35mm mentioned. What's going on here? The image circle for full frame is 44mm. I'll see if I can find the reference and post it as an edit.
Ray, in all honesty, what have you been smoking lately? Sounds like fun, could you spare a bit?
(PS. For anyone not familiar with Nikon lens terminology. Any lens not explicitly marked as DX, is made to cover the full 24x36, 35mm, 135 or FX format. Canon use EF-S to designate their reduced format lenses, which BTW cannot be mounted to their non APS-C cameras, and Sigma use DC. There, it is quite simple really.)
-
Ray, in all honesty, what have you been smoking lately? Sounds like fun, could you spare a bit?
No. Just reading reports on the internet, which is all I have to go by. Here's a comment from your revered Bjorn Rorslett regarding the Nikkor 70-200/2.8.
On the D3, however, issues occur with this lens. A certain amount of vignetting when the lens is set wide open is both to be expected and indeed readily visible. But stopping down one or two clicks resolves that issue nicely. The centre sharpness is excellent even on the D3, but the tendency for the corners lacking critical sharpness when the lens is focused towards infinity at its longer end is unexpected and troublesome. For landscapes at 200 mm, you need to stop down way too far to get the corners just barely acceptable, even to f/22 in some cases. I think the covering power of this slim design simply is not adequate for a good performance across the entire FX frame, at least towards the 200 mm setting.
I simply don't have the resources to test every lens for myself.
-
No. Just reading reports on the internet, which is all I have to go by. Here's a comment from your revered Bjorn Rorslett regarding the Nikkor 70-200/2.8.
I simply don't have the resources to test every lens for myself.
So try to control your urge to comment on all topics regardless if you have something useful to convey or not.
The 70-200's issue is well known and blown out of proportion IMO. I thought this thread was about midrange zooms?
-
So try to control your urge to comment on all topics regardless if you have something useful to convey or not.
The 70-200's issue is well known and blown out of proportion IMO. I thought this thread was about midrange zooms?
Hey! I'm soon going to be an owner of a Nikon D700. I've got only one lens and it looks as though it will stay like that. I can't find another lens that interests me. The Nikkor 24-70 seems a fine lens, just as the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 is a fine lens which I already own. But the Nikkor lacks VR and the Canon has IS. I can't find a compelling reason to get the Nikkor 24-70/2.8, but I would not argue that it's not a fine lens even though it might not be perfect in the corners.
-
Hey! I'm soon going to be an owner of a Nikon D700. I've got only one lens and it looks as though it will stay like that. I can't find another lens that interests me. The Nikkor 24-70 seems a fine lens, just as the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 is a fine lens which I already own. But the Nikkor lacks VR and the Canon has IS. I can't find a compelling reason to get the Nikkor 24-70/2.8, but I would not argue that it's not a fine lens even though it might not be perfect in the corners.
Who cares?
-
Who cares?
I care! I'm careful what I spend my money on. I need to know in what way my image quality and options will be improved when I buy a new lens. Don't most people? You seem unduly sensitive. Are you a Nikon fanboy?
-
I care! I'm careful what I spend my money on. I need to know in what way my image quality and options will be improved when I buy a new lens. Don't most people? You seem unduly sensitive. Are you a Nikon fanboy?
I'm someone who doesn't like your tendency to monopolize threads, express opinions on anything regardless if you know what you're talking about or not and trying to always have the last word (make the last post). So I'll let you have that last one. You can provide your reply and I promise I'm not going to reply back. There, happy now?
-
I'm someone who doesn't like your tendency to monopolize threads, express opinions on anything regardless if you know what you're talking about or not and trying to always have the last word (make the last post). So I'll let you have that last one. You can provide your reply and I promise I'm not going to reply back. There, happy now?
Yes. Happy to refute the nonsense of your argument in the interest of clear thinking. Nobody has a monopoly on any thread on this forum. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion, but I would hope if you disagree with an opinion you would provide salient facts or references to salient facts so we can all benefit and learn. Ad hominen attacks serve no purpose and benefit no-one.
-
Was it possible that anyone was ever able to shoot a sharp photograph before lens stabilization technology? Yes, I think it was. But as soon as some new technology becomes widely available does everything that came before become suddenly obsolete? No it does not. I love VR technology, particularly on long lenses, but it is not a prerequisite for every single lens purchase. Using the best technique is better insurance of a quality image than VR. Would I like to have VR on every lens? Maybe, but maybe not. Weight is a factor for sure, but I don't see the need for it in, for example, a lens that might be used primarily as a tripod mounted landscape lens.
My post count is probably lower than my registered time on the forum might indicate. That is largely because I like to post when I have something from experience to contribute. Otherwise I read and ponder the experiences of others who have valuable information to share. At times I think there are a number of people who simply enjoy jumping into the thick of it without any valuable information just for the recreational opportunity.
-
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
Actually, the 24-70's only weakness (in the corners) is specifically at 24mm. At, say, 35mm, it's quite sharp across the frame.
Don't take my comment at 24mm to be indicative of the lenses performance across the range. For quite a while I owned two copies of the lens and both had similar issues, indicating, I think, some curvature of field issues that rear their head at 24mm in the corners. Lenses are often tradeoffs - hard to find a perfect lens. Given the class leading performance of the lens in the 30-60mm range, I will gladly suffer a less than stellar 24mm corner performance, but I realize not everyone may make the same choice.
-m
-
. . . excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
A DX lens will not cover the FX area. If you mount a DX lens on a Nikon FX body, the body will switch to a DX mode and carve a DX sized image out of the middle of the sensor. If you were to mount a DX lens on a Nikon film body, you will see the image circle. It is not a matter of being weak in the corners at all. It is a matter of the DX lenses being designed for a DX image.
-
You seem to be so sensitive and so vulnerable, you've blown my comments out of all proprtion. As I've already mentioned, a bit of softness in the corners, especially at the short end is to be expected.
Ray: He was commenting on the following statement that you made and which you have not corroborated:
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.
(The bold emphasis on 'any' is mine.)
I think your statement is nonsense. Of course I might be mistaken, and I am open to counter arguments.
-
A DX lens will not cover the FX area. If you mount a DX lens on a Nikon FX body, the body will switch to a DX mode and carve a DX sized image out of the middle of the sensor. If you were to mount a DX lens on a Nikon film body, you will see the image circle. It is not a matter of being weak in the corners at all. It is a matter of the DX lenses being designed for a DX image.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the following things apply:
1. In all Nikon FX dSLRs you can choose to have the camera NOT switch automatically to the DX crop when a DX lens is mounted.
2. Not all 3rd party 'DX' format lenses trigger the automatic crop mechanism.
3. Some Nikon DX lenses (namely the 12-24 and the 17-55) can cover the FX frame at the longer fl positions (e.g. For the 12-24 this happens from about 17-18mm). The performance at the edges / corners is nothing to write home about but can be acceptable stopped down for many applications. The same may apply to some of the 3rd party lenses (e.g. The Tokina 10-17 'fisheye' zoom covers the FX frame from 14-15 upwards, though I don't like its performance even in the center).
-
Thanks for clarifying that. I was speaking specifically of the Nikon DX lenses and my point is still valid; the DX lenses are designed for a DX image and argueing that they would be soft at the corners on an FX body is rubbish and a simple attempt to paint with as broad a brush as possible that the Nikon lenses are not up to the task.
-
So, to come back on topic and to answer the OP's question, which I remind was 'Is there a good quality 28 - 70 mm (or more) zoom lens for Nikon full-frame DSLRs? ' the answer is an emphatic YES there is, it is called the Nikkor AF-S 24-70 2.8G which is to all accounts an excellent quality lens. The old 28-70 is also a very good quality lens and can be found used priced attractively (in comparison to the 24-70).
There.
-
Thanks for clarifying that. I was speaking specifically of the Nikon DX lenses and my point is still valid; the DX lenses are designed for a DX image and argueing that they would be soft at the corners on an FX body is rubbish and a simple attempt to paint with as broad a brush as possible that the Nikon lenses are not up to the task.
I just meant my post as a clarification for accuracy's sake. I agree with the crux of what you're saying.
-
- The Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 on the D700 got the best absolute mark,
- Followed closely by the Canon 24-70 f2.8
- The Sony Zeiss on the A900 was a rather distant third. Their comment was that it was excellent on the A700, but clearly weaker than both Nikon and Canon offerings in the corners when used on the A900.
Bernard, Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that unlike the stellar performance that the 14-24 and 24-70 Nikkors demonstrated on lower res FF bodies like the D700/D3, the edge performance on the D3X is not as good. The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.
The following is a quote:
==========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========
Based on my prior experience with the Canon 24-70 and current experience with the Zeiss 24-70, I would state that they definitely got a damaged Zeiss for testing on the A900, if the Zeiss (benchtested during its development, specifically on a high resolution FF body), came in a "distant third" to these older Canikon lenses.
-
Bernard, Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that unlike the stellar performance that the 14-24 and 24-70 Nikkors demonstrated on lower res FF bodies like the D700/D3, the edge performance on the D3X is not as good. The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.
The following is a quote:
==========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========
Based on my prior experience with the Canon 24-70 and current experience with the Zeiss 24-70, I would state that they definitely got a damaged Zeiss for testing on the A900, if the Zeiss (benchtested during its development, specifically on a high resolution FF body), came in a "distant third" to these older Canikon lenses.
Stating that the D3x reveals that the lenses are 'not perfect' (show me a lens that is) doesn't mean that they are not excellent lenses. Everything has to be judged realistically against what else is available at any one time. I'm not saying you're saying otherwise, but I'm sure the phrase 'the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms' can easily be taken out of context by those that tend to take statements out of context. I would hate to have to bear another round of raysense in this thread.
-
Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that ... The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.
The following is a quote:
=========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========
This visible imperfection probably says nothing about how those lenses compare to Canon or Sony/Zeiss lenses; it could well be a consequence of what I believe is a general fact: 24MP 35mm format sensors (and large prints therefrom) have enough resolution to show the imperfections (like resolution limits in the corners) of almost any lens, especially zooms.
A reality check: even using previous millennium technology like 35mm color film as the "sensor", the resolution differences between good lenses can be seen in big enough prints, and in particular the imperfections of even good zooms are usually detectable in comparison to good primes. The difference is that digital files lead us into the temptation of viewing at about 200ppi [or as low as 100ppi on-screen], meaning 30"x20" from the D3X [or an on-screen crop from up to 60"x40"], whereas I doubt that 35mm film users often judged their lenses on the basis of prints that large. Many of us were instead happy if a 35mm format lens gave truly sharp 14"x11" prints.
-
Bernard, Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that unlike the stellar performance that the 14-24 and 24-70 Nikkors demonstrated on lower res FF bodies like the D700/D3, the edge performance on the D3X is not as good. The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.
The following is a quote:
==========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========
Based on my prior experience with the Canon 24-70 and current experience with the Zeiss 24-70, I would state that they definitely got a damaged Zeiss for testing on the A900, if the Zeiss (benchtested during its development, specifically on a high resolution FF body), came in a "distant third" to these older Canikon lenses.
I think you're making broad generalizations from Thoms short comment. Looking at Thoms comment, we don't know the following: which aperture, which focal length range, and what the magnitude of "not perfect" means. There is no perfect lens - not even the Sony/Zeiss - and thus it's unfair to broadly state opinions about the Nikkor based upon the little informatiion in that quote. I've seen enough images from all three to have a comfortable opinion that the Nikkor 24-70 and the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 are both excellent glass, and both a bit superior to the Canon 24-70 lens. The differences between the Nikkor and the Zeiss are more in regards to rendering differences that result from different decisions made by their respective lens designers. The Nikkor, for example, has better OOF rendering/bokeh than the Sony, while in some cases the Sony might have the very slightest edge in terms of corner sharpness at some (but not all) focal lengths. Both are excellent lenses. I have a slight preference for the Nikkor because I happen to like the Nikon lens designers approach to image integrity and a balance of many image quality attributes - that's why I'm a Nikon shooter (for the glass), but I could *easily* live with the Sony A900 and Sony/Zeiss lens if I had to switch tomorrow without much concern - as I stated, both are excellent glass.
-m
-
Ray: He was commenting on the following statement that you made and which you have not corroborated:
(The bold emphasis on 'any' is mine.)
I think your statement is nonsense. Of course I might be mistaken, and I am open to counter arguments.
My statement is clearly not nonsense, but it might be misleading if I have implied that only Nikkor lenses suffer from this problem. If that's the impression I gave, it wasn't intended. Most of my lenses are soft in the corners. It's a fact of life for those using full frame 35mm. It was a joy to find the Nikkor 14-24 which is less soft than most, in the corners.
-
Was it possible that anyone was ever able to shoot a sharp photograph before lens stabilization technology? Yes, I think it was. But as soon as some new technology becomes widely available does everything that came before become suddenly obsolete? No it does not. I love VR technology, particularly on long lenses, but it is not a prerequisite for every single lens purchase.
Nor is image stabilisation necessarily a prerequisite for me when choosing a lens. After all, I recently bought the Nikkor 14-24. However, all else being equal, I'd prefer the lens with IS or VR. I switched from Minolta to Canon several years ago, whilst still shooting film, primarily because Canon lenses had image stabilisation and Minolta lenses did not. I was disappointed with the image quality of ISO 400 film which I often felt compelled to use to get sharp results without tripod.
It looks to me as though my 50D with EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS will adequately take the place of a D700 with Nikkor 24-70.
-
My statement is clearly not nonsense, but it might be misleading if I have implied that only Nikkor lenses suffer from this problem. If that's the impression I gave, it wasn't intended. Most of my lenses are soft in the corners. It's a fact of life for those using full frame 35mm. It was a joy to find the Nikkor 14-24 which is less soft than most, in the corners.
Let me again remind you of your statement:
"This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, "
Where is your evidence that any Nikon lens suffers from 'weak' corners on FX? It contradicts all the reviews I have seen. Do you own a range of Nikon lenses and an FX camera?
-
Let me again remind you of your statement:
"This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, "
Where is your evidence that any Nikon lens suffers from 'weak' corners on FX? It contradicts all the reviews I have seen. Do you own a range of Nikon lenses and an FX camera?
All lenses tend to suffer from weak corners. The evidence is in the body of hundreds of MTF charts at Photodo. Any lens which has a reasonably flat response out to 22mm from the centre is a rarity, whatever the brand. Such corner weakness is particularly a problem at wide apertures and at short focal lengths and is a pronbem which becomes greater as the FF sensor resolution is increased, as with the D3X.
It might not be the case that Nikon lenses are more prone to this than other brands, which is why I corrected any impression I might have created that this was the case. However, what does appear to be the case, is that Nikon have been concentrating on producing DX lenses in the past few years, and there is perhaps a shortage of modern Nikkor designs for the full frame format. It certainly doesn't look at this stage that I'll being buying any more Nikkor lenses in the near future, except perhaps the new Nikkor 50/1.4, or I might settle for the cheaper and lighter 50/1.8.
When browsing the specs of a number of Nikkor lenses yesterday, mainly to find out the weight, I got a fright when I saw an image circle of 35mm specified in relation to one of the Nikkor 50mm designs. Perhaps I was imagining it or perhaps someone was trying to make the point that this would be the relevant image circle for a DX camera when the lens was used as a portrait lens.
Okay? Are you able to calm down now?
-
When browsing the specs of a number of Nikkor lenses yesterday, mainly to find out the weight, I got a fright when I saw an image circle of 35mm specified in relation to one of the Nikkor 50mm designs. Perhaps I was imagining it or perhaps someone was trying to make the point that this would be the relevant image circle for a DX camera when the lens was used as a portrait lens.
It is time to go out and take some real world experience. As soon as you got some pictures touching your soul all the fright will be healed regardless what lens you use.
If an image circle will bother you that much what will a picture cause taken by another guy with exactly this "imperfect" lens that is surprisingly looking good?
And don´t forget to check out your personal image circle. That works wonders. Trust me ;-)
-
If an image circle will bother you that much what will a picture cause taken by another guy with exactly this "imperfect" lens that is surprisingly looking good?
Image circles do bother me. No image circle, no picture. Small image circle in relation to the sensor, poor corner resolution. If you want to take the view, the camera (and lens) doesn't matter, I can go along with that, as long as you don't take the view to absurd extremes .
-
AFAIK Nikon is not publishing specs for the image circles of its lenses. The most one will find is if the lens is supposed to cover the full FX, 35mm, 135, 24x36 (take your pick, it's all the same) frame or the DX crop. Ray is once again taking, knowingly I suspect (since I'm sure he understands what that 35mm reffered to unless his experience is limited to digital days), something he purports to have seen in a regional Nikon site, out of context and out of all proportion just to be able to increase his post count and cause reaction. Classic troll behaviour IMO. I'm switching the ignore flag on for the guy to save my sanity.
-
The most rigorous lens test I know of are those performed by the French magazine Chasseur d'Image. Recently they have been testing as a combo with a body.
Their Jan issue had a comparison of all the pro zooms for different mounts:
... snip ...
Bernard
Does anyone know how Chasseur d'Image tests lenses (lens charts, in the field, a combination?) and what metrics they use (MTF, SQF, lp/mm, etc)?
Do they only test one lens of each model?
I'm asking because I don't read French and some day I might buy a FF DSLR.
Also (with the hope of not starting a war!) the following remarks on lens testing may be of interest:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lenstest.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lenstest.html)
-
Also (with the hope of not starting a war!) the following remarks on lens testing may be of interest:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lenstest.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lenstest.html)
I agree with this view expressed by Bob Atkins. Test methodology does vary. Lens quality from batch to batch does vary. Subjective opinions vary most of all.
The solution to these problems appears to be too expensive and I'm not sure that manufacturers want solutions. Manufacturers like brand loyalty. I don't believe they would welcome a method which would make it easy for critical and objective scrutiny of the performance of their lenses by consumers.
I believe there's a statement on Photozone's site to the effect that they reserve the right to remove any test report which they subsequently believe is a-typical of the performance of that lens.
In my own situation, I feel I would like at least one other lens to go with my D700. I'm very pleased with my Canon 50/1.8 because it's very lightweight and remarkably sharp for its price. I imagined the Nikkor 50/1.8 would be similarly good value. However, when I looked at the Photozone results, I almost fell off my chair. Fortunately, I didn't bang my head.
The Nikkor 50/1.8 certainly seems sharp in the centre, perhaps even sharper than the Canon 50/1.8, although one has to bear in mind that the Canon test was performed with an 8mp camera (the 350D) and the Nikon test with the 10mp D200. I think it would be fair and reasonable to add 10% to the Canon figures for comparison purposes.
But what caused me to almost fall off my chair was edge and corner resolution. Is this a lens designed for full frame? If it is, how can it be that bad at the borders? If the borders are that bad on a cropped format camera such as the D200, what are they going to be like on a full frame like the D700? Well, one could reasonably assume, much worse.
You judge for yourself. I post the Photozone resolution charts for both lenses below. Hope Photozone doesn't mind.
[attachment=11041:Nikkor_C...mparison.jpg]
-
All lenses tend to suffer from weak corners. The evidence is in the body of hundreds of MTF charts at Photodo. Any lens which has a reasonably flat response out to 22mm from the centre is a rarity, whatever the brand. Such corner weakness is particularly a problem at wide apertures and at short focal lengths and is a pronbem which becomes greater as the FF sensor resolution is increased, as with the D3X.
It might not be the case that Nikon lenses are more prone to this than other brands, which is why I corrected any impression I might have created that this was the case. However, what does appear to be the case, is that Nikon have been concentrating on producing DX lenses in the past few years, and there is perhaps a shortage of modern Nikkor designs for the full frame format. It certainly doesn't look at this stage that I'll being buying any more Nikkor lenses in the near future, except perhaps the new Nikkor 50/1.4, or I might settle for the cheaper and lighter 50/1.8.
When browsing the specs of a number of Nikkor lenses yesterday, mainly to find out the weight, I got a fright when I saw an image circle of 35mm specified in relation to one of the Nikkor 50mm designs. Perhaps I was imagining it or perhaps someone was trying to make the point that this would be the relevant image circle for a DX camera when the lens was used as a portrait lens.
Okay? Are you able to calm down now?
Okay, so you haven't taken any photos yourself with Nikon lenses on FX/film cameras, and base your judgements on MTF plots. Well, the reviews and MTF plots I have seen show that Nikon lenses do not have a problem with weak corners on FX.
Almost all lenses from any maker will have stronger centre resolution, especially wide open. Many lenses are soft at the edges on FX when used wide open. Is that what you mean by your sweeping statement?
I am quite calm. I simply want to know the justification for your statement, because in my experience of using Nikon lenses on film bodies it is nonsense.
-
Why don't we tell Ray to get on with his life? A 12MP D700 won't exactly stress any decent Nikon lens, and there are plenty of nice MF and AF prime antiques around which are sharp. The camera will run out of pixels before any full-format Nikon PRIME lens, old or new, would be my guess. The only truly soft lens I have ever owned was a Canon 24-70 F2.8. It was also the last zoom I ever bought.
Edmund
-
Well, the reviews and MTF plots I have seen show that Nikon lenses do not have a problem with weak corners on FX.
Well show us those MTF plots so we can all judge for ourselves and learn something. As you can see, I'm interested in lenses that do not have weak corners, otherwise I wouldn't have have gone to the great expense and trouble of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. It seems clear that the Nikkor 50/1.8 is not going to be much good with FX cameras. However, the Nikkor 50/1.4 AF-S seems a lot better. The Micro-Nikkor AS-S 105/2.8 VR seems also excellent. It's got VR too.
-
Why don't we tell Ray to get on with his life? A 12MP D700 won't exactly stress any decent Nikon lens, and there are plenty of nice MF and AF prime antiques around which are sharp. The camera will run out of pixels before any full-format Nikon PRIME lens, old or new, would be my guess. The only truly soft lens I have ever owned was a Canon 24-70 F2.8. It was also the last zoom I ever bought.
Edmund
Edmund,
There are many things that contribute to resolution. I have no shortage of lenses. I've got everything covered from 14mm to 900mm (with no gaps) if I include the 1.4x extender.
You can understand therefore that I would be reluctant to buy any lens which did not offer something in performance that I don't already have. I find it rather strange that some people's ego seems to be tied up to their camera equipment in such a way that any hint of criticism seem to send such people into a paroxysm of rage.
-
Edmund,
There are many things that contribute to resolution. I have no shortage of lenses. I've got everything covered from 14mm to 900mm (with no gaps) if I include the 1.4x extender.
You can understand therefore that I would be reluctant to buy any lens which did not offer something in performance that I don't already have. I find it rather strange that some people's ego seems to be tied up to their camera equipment in such a way that any hint of criticism seem to send such people into a paroxysm of rage.
Reluctant to buy, Ray ? Just go into the nearest pawnbroker's and stock up on old primes if you really need a focal length; I really don't understand why a smart guy like you would clutter up your time on trivial details - is a used 50/1.8 or 35/2 lens really worth the bother of a discussion ? The used junk dealers have all these old primes sitting there and waiting.
The last time I needed a lens for my 39 MP back and Mamiya I walked into Adorama in NY and paid $225 (!!!) for an AF 150mm F3.5 lens which was used by fully functional. At that price do I really a lens test or an MTF chart ?
Edmund
-
Well show us those MTF plots so we can all judge for ourselves and learn something. As you can see, I'm interested in lenses that do not have weak corners, otherwise I wouldn't have have gone to the great expense and trouble of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. It seems clear that the Nikkor 50/1.8 is not going to be much good with FX cameras. However, the Nikkor 50/1.4 AF-S seems a lot better. The Micro-Nikkor AS-S 105/2.8 VR seems also excellent. It's got VR too.
I think we need to introduce some subtlety into the discussion rather than making blanket statements based on a small sample of lenses.
In general wide angle lenses are notorious for soft edges wide open, and usually require quite a bit of stopping down. Nikon wide pimes are often quite poor. I owned the 28mm F2.8 AFD and 24mm F2.8 AFD, and did not like them. By all accounts Canon wides are in general no better, with a few exceptions. The 14-24mm F2.8 AFS is a stellar lens. The 17-35mm AFD is a superb lens, and for years outclassed offerings from Canon. The micro lenses are excellent. The tilt shift lenses are excellent. The long primes are excellent. Really I think you are extrapolating from poor wide open performance of many Nikon wide angle lenses, and assuming that characterises them all. It doesn't.
The 50mm F1.8 is a semi-consumer grade lens. Sadly some of the older semi-consumer grade primes are not so good, perhaps because Nikon reduced the price to make them competitive, and the quality took a hit. That is why the 28mm F2.8 AFD is awful, whereas the older manual designs are far superior. I guess they assume pros and serious amateurs would not buy the 28mm F2.8 AFD and 50mm F1.8 lenses, and hence optical performance was less than ideal.
For reviews, check out www.NikonLinks.com.
-
Maybe we should just make a quick list of the cheap gems, that seems a better use of our time. I agree that the MF versions are often very good, and in fact they are also very cheap to get these days. I don't know whether they all ^work on the D700 though. I still have a 17-35 somewhere, and a 180/2.8 and I knew when I switched to Canon that these were good enough to keep if I bought a Nikon body again fown the road.
Edmund
I think we need to introduce some subtlety into the discussion rather than making blanket statements based on a small sample of lenses.
The 50mm F1.8 is a semi-consumer grade lens. Sadly some of the older semi-consumer grade primes are not so good, perhaps because Nikon reduced the price to make them competitive, and the quality took a hit. That is why the 28mm F2.8 AFD is awful, whereas the older manual designs are far superior. I guess they assume pros and serious amateurs would not buy the 28mm F2.8 AFD and 50mm F1.8 lenses, and hence optical performance was less than ideal.
For reviews, check out www.NikonLinks.com.
-
I find it rather strange that some people's ego seems to be tied up to their camera equipment in such a way that any hint of criticism seem to send such people into a paroxysm of rage.
Can you give an example of somone enjoying a "paroxysm of rage"? FWIW I am quite calm, if somewhat bored. Camera equipment is nothing more than a tool. But why shouldn't someone call you to task when you make misleading statements? There are of course plenty of criticisms one could make about Nikon. But I won't bore you with them.
-
Maybe we should just make a quick list of the cheap gems. I agree that the MF versions are often very good, and in fact they are also very cheap to get these days. I don't know whether they all ^work on the D700 though.
Edmund
I think all but the oldest, and a few early ultra wides will work on the D700. Bjorn Rorslett's web site is a good source of information regarding older lenses, and new ones too. (His name requires a Nordic character which I cannot type, but Google and you will find the site.)
-
I think all but the oldest, and a few early ultra wides will work on the D700. Bjorn Rorslett's web site is a good source of information regarding older lenses, and new ones too. (His name requires a Nordic character which I cannot type, but Google and you will find the site.)
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
This link will take you to the top of the lens review pages.
-
Reluctant to buy, Ray ? Just go into the nearest pawnbroker's and stock up on old primes if you really need a focal length; I really don't understand why a smart guy like you would clutter up your time on trivial details - is a used 50/1.8 or 35/2 lens really worth the bother of a discussion ? The used junk dealers have all these old primes sitting there and waiting.
Edmund,
This might be an ideal and inexpensive solution for studio work where distance to the subject can be altered to maximise lens performance within the composition, but I'm more of a peripatetic photographer. My interest in photography takes me clambering up hills in Nepal. It wouldn't be sensible to carry a heavy bag full of primes and I would miss a lot of shots whilst changing lenses frequently. High quality zooms with IS or VR capability is what I would prefer, rather than old lenses that probably won't autofocus when fitted to a modern Nikon body.
The last time I needed a lens for my 39 MP back and Mamiya I walked into Adorama in NY and paid $225 (!!!) for an AF 150mm F3.5 lens which was used by fully functional. At that price do I really a lens test or an MTF chart ?
You need a lens test. If it doesn't meet your standards you sell it and the next person who buys it does a lens test then sells it and so on and on until the lens eventually achieves the dubious status of being the most tested lens in the world. Finally the lens gets a permanent home with someone who doesn't give a stuff about lens quality .
-
The 50mm F1.8 is a semi-consumer grade lens. Sadly some of the older semi-consumer grade primes are not so good, perhaps because Nikon reduced the price to make them competitive, and the quality took a hit. That is why the 28mm F2.8 AFD is awful, whereas the older manual designs are far superior. I guess they assume pros and serious amateurs would not buy the 28mm F2.8 AFD and 50mm F1.8 lenses, and hence optical performance was less than ideal.
For reviews, check out www.NikonLinks.com.
Fair enough! But I was comparing apples with apples. The Canon 50/1.8 is also a very cheap lens. When I picked up my copy from the store, I asked the salesman if the lens was actually made of glass. It felt so light I suspected it was plastic.
-
[attachment=11041:Nikkor_C...mparison.jpg]
Here is the ZA 24-70 for APS-C
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/zeiss_za_2470_28/mtf.gif)
Canon
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/mtf.gif)
Nikon
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_2470_28/mtf.gif)
-
Here is the ZA 24-70 for APS-C
I think most people would agree that the Carl Zeiss 24-70 has a *noticeably* higher resolution than the Canon "L" or the newer Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, which is to be expected from a Zeiss, and has been depicted starkly in the charts you presented (and I personally know from past experience with a "good copy" of the "L" in comparison to my current Zeiss).
But some people find the Nikon to have a better Bokeh than the Zeiss. Simply a matter of design priorities, I guess.
-
I think most people would agree that the Carl Zeiss 24-70 has a *noticeably* higher resolution than the Canon "L" or the newer Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, which is to be expected from a Zeiss, and has been depicted starkly in the charts you presented (and I personally know from past experience with a "good copy" of the "L" in comparison to my current Zeiss).
But some people find the Nikon to have a better Bokeh than the Zeiss. Simply a matter of design priorities, I guess.
Um - guys, even photozone says one can NOT compare the charts cross system so these efforts to show superiority are pretty much a waste of bandwidth. The differences I've seen between the Sony/Zeiss and the Nikkor are nowhere what I'd call stark differences - they are quite close resolution wise, and the differences, as I've stated before, are much more rendering related, particularly in terms of bokeh. Both sharp, excellent lenses. And I fully expect Canon at some point to do a "mark II" version of their 24-70 at which point they'll join the top quality club as well. IMO both Sony and Nikon took an approach to making sure they had some *excellent* glass options available when they went FF with their bodies while Canon chose an approach to get the sensor/bodies out first and are lagging (IMO, as well as some other respected folks like Lloyd Chambers) in the glass. In time this will wash out because it doesn't take an einstein to realize the lenses are now key when we talk about high resolution bodies and I'm pretty sure Canon, who has been quite successful, is addressing it, as we've seen with their L series II designs.
As an aside, I rarely mean to get personal here, but you seem to have a problem with someone besides the maker of your body making good glass, because your consistent brand bias and zealotry/defense of your precious Sony is getting REALLY old here. REALLY old.
-m
-
Um - guys, even photozone says one can NOT compare the charts cross system so these efforts to show superiority are pretty much a waste of bandwidth.
Quite. The resolution figures are roughly in order of the sensor pixel count: Sony A700 (12MP), Nikon D200 (10MP) and Canon EOS 350D (8MP).
-
Even if the charts were comparable across systems, which they are not, I would still fail to see the 'stark' difference between the Zeiss and the Nikon judging by those numbers... Now I'm not going to mention anything about those tests being on crop formats while we're talking here mostly about full frame.
To be honest I couldn't give a damn if one of the lenses is slightly 'better' (whatever this means) than the other if both lenses are very good ones according to all user accounts. I'm just commenting here because the insistence of some people to take comments and tests completely out of context has started getting on my nerves.
-
Fair enough! But I was comparing apples with apples. The Canon 50/1.8 is also a very cheap lens. When I picked up my copy from the store, I asked the salesman if the lens was actually made of glass. It felt so light I suspected it was plastic.
You made the statement that any modern Nikon lens has weak edges on FX. I think that is mistaken. Any, I think this issue is best left before I lose the will to live. Though I am not sure these posts constitute a definition of life.
-
Thank you all for many interesting posts. NikosR seems to summalize it all very well below. I should definetely count Nikon into the competition here. Thank you.
Rgds,
Thomas
So, to come back on topic and to answer the OP's question, which I remind was 'Is there a good quality 28 - 70 mm (or more) zoom lens for Nikon full-frame DSLRs? ' the answer is an emphatic YES there is, it is called the Nikkor AF-S 24-70 2.8G which is to all accounts an excellent quality lens. The old 28-70 is also a very good quality lens and can be found used priced attractively (in comparison to the 24-70).
There.
-
Thank you Bernard for bringing a translated short-version of this test (that I would not be able to read in it's original language). This has been very helpful in my decision-making.
Thomas
The most rigorous lens test I know of are those performed by the French magazine Chasseur d'Image. Recently they have been testing as a combo with a body.
Their Jan issue had a comparison of all the pro zooms for different mounts:
- The Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 on the D700 got the best absolute mark,
- Followed closely by the Canon 24-70 f2.8
- The Sony Zeiss on the A900 was a rather distant third. Their comment was that it was excellent on the A700, but clearly weaker than both Nikon and Canon offerings in the corners when used on the A900.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To be honest I couldn't give a damn if one of the lenses is slightly 'better' (whatever this means) than the other if both lenses are very good ones according to all user accounts. I'm just commenting here because the insistence of some people to take comments and tests completely out of context has started getting on my nerves.
Why should it "get on your nerves" ? I am assuming you are referring to my post above.
I mentioned that the Sony/Zeiss has better resolution (as demonstrated by the charts from PZ) and the Nikkor has better bokeh. The pluses and the minuses of either product.
Why would you read one portion of my response where the Zeiss's positive aspect was mentioned and ignore the second portion that gave credit to the Nikon lens ? Case of selective vision ?
-
As an aside, I rarely mean to get personal here, but you seem to have a problem with someone besides the maker of your body making good glass, because your consistent brand bias and zealotry/defense of your precious Sony is getting REALLY old here. REALLY old.
No, actually there are some lousy lenses in the Sony range, including the over-priced and under-performing 35mm f/1.4 G. The 70-200 f/2.8G SSM and the 300mm f/2.8 G SSM are also severely over-priced while the performance is just comparable to a Canon L and a pro-grade Nikon. Several other lenses like the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 50mm f/2.8 Macro, the 50mm f/1.4 etc., all lack SSM (ring-USM in Canon-speak) and AF through body-driven motor, while being priced the same as a Canon lens with ring-USM.
However, I have no problem in stating that the Zeiss lenses in the Sony range are exceptional performers and when I see subtle (and sometimes overt) attempts to downplay their performance (and unique availability to the mount), I tend to speak up. Nothing to do with "zealotry". Having full-frame 35mm Zeiss or Leica lenses with native full mount compatibility and Auto-focus, is a BIG plus for any mount and whenever I see somebody try to downplay the importance of that (again, with great subtlety mind you), I try to change that perception - especially since Sony is not an "established" brand, with a lot of mis-information floating around that tries to beat it down (overtly and covertly).
Now, are you going to be selective about reading only the second paragraph in my response and ignore the first, and call me a zealot defending Sony ?
-
No, actually there are some lousy lenses in the Sony range, including the over-priced and under-performing 35mm f/1.4 G. The 70-200 f/2.8G SSM and the 300mm f/2.8 G SSM are also severely over-priced while the performance is just comparable to a Canon L and a pro-grade Nikon. Several other lenses like the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 50mm f/2.8 Macro, the 50mm f/1.4 etc., all lack SSM (ring-USM in Canon-speak) and AF through body-driven motor, while being priced the same as a Canon lens with ring-USM.
However, I have no problem in stating that the Zeiss lenses in the Sony range are exceptional performers and when I see subtle (and sometimes overt) attempts to downplay their performance (and unique availability to the mount), I tend to speak up. Nothing to do with "zealotry". Having full-frame 35mm Zeiss or Leica lenses with native full mount compatibility and Auto-focus, is a BIG plus for any mount and whenever I see somebody try to downplay the importance of that (again, with great subtlety mind you), I try to change that perception - especially since Sony is not an "established" brand, with a lot of mis-information floating around that tries to beat it down (overtly and covertly).
Now, are you going to be selective about reading only the second paragraph in my response and ignore the first, and call me a zealot defending Sony ?
That Chasseur test calling the Zeiss 24-70 a distant third may be the most suspect review Ive heard about in a while. Something is definitely wrong.
-
You made the statement that any modern Nikon lens has weak edges on FX. I think that is mistaken. Any, I think this issue is best left before I lose the will to live. Though I am not sure these posts constitute a definition of life.
Slough,
A word of advice. If you want to leave an issue alone, then don't continue to yap at someone's heels after he has corrected his mistake, and even worse, misrepresent what he actually said as a final nip.
This is what I said: "This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX....."
Now I've already agreed that the above phrase is poorly worded and misleading and you were quite right to bring it to my attention. I should have written something like, "This seems to be a common problem with lenses designed for full frame 35mm, weak in the corners" without creating the impression that Nikon lenses might be worse than other brands in this respect.
You then continued to badger me to provide evidence, asking: "Where is your evidence that any Nikon lens suffers from 'weak' corners on FX?"
I provided that evidence. The Nikkor 50/1.8 would appear to be particularly poor in the corners on an FX camera, certainly poorer than the Canon equivalent, which is not to say with more research one would not find a Canon lens which is significantly worse in the corners than the equivalent Nikkor lens.
The awareness I've been trying to create in this discussion is that corner softness of lenses when used on full frame cameras is a common problem. Even on cropped format cameras, corner softness can sometimes be an issue, which is why Photozone charts always include the performance of a lens at the 'border', not in the extreme corners specifically, which would result in an even worse figure, but in the borders which include the short edges of the format.
It doesn't take much imagination to deduce if a lens has noticeable softening at the edges on the APS-C format, it will be much more noticeable on full frame.
-
Why should it "get on your nerves" ? I am assuming you are referring to my post above.
I mentioned that the Sony/Zeiss has better resolution (as demonstrated by the charts from PZ) and the Nikkor has better bokeh. The pluses and the minuses of either product.
Why would you read one portion of my response where the Zeiss's positive aspect was mentioned and ignore the second portion that gave credit to the Nikon lens ? Case of selective vision ?
Firstly, I was not referring only to you. Secondly, I read all of your message and still maintain that the sole piece of evidence (i.e. photozone test) you use to support your claim cannot be used for that purpose.In fact the evidence that you're using by definition precludes anyone to come to this conclusion. It's written prefixed by an exclamation mark all over the place in the site you're referring to. You choose to ignore it. I think it's pretty simple really. Now, who has selective vision?
I repeat I have no clue, since I have only had limited experience with one of the lenses, and I don't really care, which of the lenses is subtly better than the other.
(PS. Don't even get me started on discussing what the photozone test REALLY tests, and how much is left out which is of photographic significance. I value an experienced photog's subjective test 100 times more than any such 'objective' test. Sure, it's an indicator of various performance characteristics so it can be used as a rough guide ASSUMING ONE UNDERSTANDS ITS LIMITATIONS, THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE TEST CONDITIONS. Hints: How do lenses perform at infinity focus? How do macro lenses perform at close up distances? What is the relevance of flat vs curved field for different kinds of shooting, different shooting distances and different subjects? I can go on ad nauseum about these issues but I'd better stop here.)
-
That Chasseur test calling the Zeiss 24-70 a distant third may be the most suspect review Ive heard about in a while. Something is definitely wrong.
As a former user of Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L and a current owner of the Zeiss, I agree that the "distant third" statement is rubbish. Or maybe they got a damaged Zeiss and thus the "test" and the results were irrelevant anyway.
-
Firstly, I was not referring only to you. Secondly, I read all of your message and still maintain that the sole piece of evidence (i.e. photozone test) you use to support your claim cannot be used for that purpose.In fact the evidence that you're using by definition precludes anyone to come to this conclusion. It's written prefixed by an exclamation mark all over the place in the site you're referring to. You choose to ignore it. I think it's pretty simple really. Now, who has selective vision?
I repeat I have no clue, since I have only had limited experience with one of the lenses, and I don't really care, which of the lenses is subtly better than the other.
(PS. Don't even get me started on discussing what the photozone test REALLY tests, and how much is left out which is of photographic significance. I value an experienced photog's subjective test 100 times more than any such 'objective' test. Sure, it's an indicator of various performance characteristics so it can be used as a rough guide ASSUMING ONE UNDERSTANDS ITS LIMITATIONS, THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE TEST CONDITIONS. Hints: How do lenses perform at infinity focus? How do macro lenses perform at close up distances? What is the relevance of flat vs curved field for different kinds of shooting, different shooting distances and different subjects? I can go on ad nauseum about these issues but I'd better stop here.)
Agree for the most part and apologize for mis-construing your earlier response.
-
As a former user of Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L and a current owner of the Zeiss, I agree that the "distant third" statement is rubbish. Or maybe they got a damaged Zeiss and thus the "test" and the results were irrelevant anyway.
There has been a known issue with decentering with some copies of the ZA 24-70s that leaves the right side of the frame soft. I have a feeling they may have gotten one of those bad copies. I've yet to hear from an owner of multiple 24-70s from the various makers that say the ZA isn't the best of the lot.
-
Slough,
A word of advice. If you want to leave an issue alone, then don't continue to yap at someone's heels after he has corrected his mistake, and even worse, misrepresent what he actually said as a final nip.
This is what I said: "This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX....."
Now I've already agreed that the above phrase is poorly worded and misleading and you were quite right to bring it to my attention. I should have written something like, "This seems to be a common problem with lenses designed for full frame 35mm, weak in the corners" without creating the impression that Nikon lenses might be worse than other brands in this respect.
You then continued to badger me to provide evidence, asking: "Where is your evidence that any Nikon lens suffers from 'weak' corners on FX?"
I provided that evidence. The Nikkor 50/1.8 would appear to be particularly poor in the corners on an FX camera, certainly poorer than the Canon equivalent, which is not to say with more research one would not find a Canon lens which is significantly worse in the corners than the equivalent Nikkor lens.
The awareness I've been trying to create in this discussion is that corner softness of lenses when used on full frame cameras is a common problem. Even on cropped format cameras, corner softness can sometimes be an issue, which is why Photozone charts always include the performance of a lens at the 'border', not in the extreme corners specifically, which would result in an even worse figure, but in the borders which include the short edges of the format.
It doesn't take much imagination to deduce if a lens has noticeable softening at the edges on the APS-C format, it will be much more noticeable on full frame.
No! One or two examples is not evidence. I think we have been here before that logic is not your strong suit.
Of course corner softness can sometimes be an issue, especially with wide angle lenses, used wide open, and sometimes even when stopped down. However ... an APS camera will a given pixel count have a higher pixel density than a full frame camera with the same pixel count. So the softening might not be more noticeable on full frame. It all depends if the IQ drop off is faster than linear. And my Nikon lenses are all superb on APS. But I would not generalise from my small selection.
I suspect what you really mean is that on a high pixel count full frame camera, such as the D3x, edge performance is a very real concern. As to whether or not that is true for most Nikon lenses, I will leave it to people with experience to provide an informative answer. Neither of us have the experience to comment.
-
I value an experienced photog's subjective test 100 times more than any such 'objective' test.
Me too. People tend to overvalue 'objective' over 'subjective' without understanding the limitations of the former.
-
I spent a couple of years shooting 5D's with the EF 24-70 as my workhorse, and the last year shooting D3's with the Nikkor 24-70 in its place.
There's no doubt whatsoever to me that the Nikkor is a superior lens. Sharper wide-open, it doesn't randomly back-focus when it feels like it (a trawl through any wedding forum will see this is the curse of the EF when shooting groups), less CA (almost none), to my eyes a smoother OOF transition, better contrast at f4 and below and wonderful tonality. I believe it to be every inch a worthy companion to the 14-24mm, and probably the finest mid-range zoom in any mount today. Even now it still stuns me with its all-round ability.
Run, don't walk, to the nearest dealer. It's THE de facto mid-range for FX bodies for those wanting the best.
-
I suspect what you really mean is that on a high pixel count full frame camera, such as the D3x, edge performance is a very real concern. As to whether or not that is true for most Nikon lenses, I will leave it to people with experience to provide an informative answer. Neither of us have the experience to comment.
C'mon now, Slough. You are either being very naive or very disingenuous. Ever since the first full frame DSLR became available, the Canon 1Ds, people have frequently claimed that their lenses needed upgrading. Lenses which seemed satisfactory at the edges and in the corners on their earlier cropped format cameras, the D30 or D60, often appeared disturbingly soft in the corners on the 1Ds with a mere 11mp.
Just as one of the advantages of the APS-C format is better edge and corner performance with lenses that have been designed for full frame 35mm, one of the disadvantages of the full frame DSLR is the opposite, ie., relatively poor corner performance with the same lenses, and I do have the experience to comment even if you don't, because I've been using a full frame DSLR for the past 3 1/2 years (the 5D) and a number of cropped format DSLRs for the past 5 years.
Of course, not all lenses are equally bad in the corners and no lens is equally bad at all apertures or all focal lengths if it's a zoom. Stopping down often fixes the problem. The problem is certainly worse with wide angle lenses, which is why I went to the expense of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. These are focal lengths I use a lot and the 14-24/2.8 seems to be one of the few Nikkor lenses that is definitely better than any Canon equivalent, with regards to edge and corner performance. In fact, I'm so impressed with this lens I went to the additional expense of getting a D700 body for it. Using the lens with an adapter on my 5D was too restrictive. No autofocussing; guesswork regarding choice of aperture; a need to remove the battery after shooting otherwise it would go flat within a few days; an inability to autobracket exposure in Aperture priority mode, and probably a few other disadvantages I didn't discover.
The reason I'm interested in this thread is because the question posed by the OP interests me. I don't like having to always carry two cameras with me when out shooting, and I would therefore like a Nikkor lens which is the equivalent of the very useful and good quality Canon 24-105/F4 IS. There doesn't appear to be one. The closest is the Nikkor AF-S 24-120/F3.5-5.6 VR.
This is another Nikkor lens for which the Photozone test results almost caused me to fall off my chair. Edge performance at 24mm and full aperture is really bad, even on the D200. Knowing this, one could avoid using 24mm at full aperture, but it seems one would have to avoid using full aperture at other focal lengths also, if one were fussy about edge performance. Even at 70mm, maximum aperture is F5.3, which is virtually F5.6, and edge performance seems greatly lacking. At 120mm and F5.6, edge performance seem better, but the lens in general seems a bit soft at this FL. However, performance at 35mm seems quite respectable.
It looks as though the D700 will be a one-lens camera for me until Nikon come out with some improved lenses of the type that interest me. The 24-70/2.8 is a fine lens, but I happen to very much appreciate image stabilisation with my lenses. The 14-24 doesn't have image stabilisation, but also doesn't need it as much as the longer focal lengths.
-
I spent a couple of years shooting 5D's with the EF 24-70 as my workhorse, and the last year shooting D3's with the Nikkor 24-70 in its place.
There's no doubt whatsoever to me that the Nikkor is a superior lens. Sharper wide-open, it doesn't randomly back-focus when it feels like it (a trawl through any wedding forum will see this is the curse of the EF when shooting groups), less CA (almost none), to my eyes a smoother OOF transition, better contrast at f4 and below and wonderful tonality. I believe it to be every inch a worthy companion to the 14-24mm, and probably the finest mid-range zoom in any mount today. Even now it still stuns me with its all-round ability.
Run, don't walk, to the nearest dealer. It's THE de facto mid-range for FX bodies for those wanting the best.
No matter how sharp the lens is, an adequate shutter speed or a tripod is always needed to realize that extra performance. If you usually use a tripod, then the lack of VR or IS is not such an issue.
I never considered getting the Canon 24-70 for this reason, because it lacks IS. Most of my shooting is done without tripod, although I always carry a lightweight tripod on shooting expeditions.
Subjective reviews without reference to objective testing can be very misleading, no matter how experienced the photographer. This is partly because lens quality variation amongst the same model is a fact of life. Combine actual lens quality variation with the unavoidable variation in subjective assessment, and the results may not be reliable. Ultimately, you have to test your lenses for yourself, which is what I always do. I tested the Nikkor 14-24 thoroughly on my 5D before deciding to buy a D700 body.
However, sensor quality variation does not seem to be such an issue, although it does exist. No two 'anything' can be literally identical. It may well be the case that on average the Nikkor 24-70 is a better lens than the Canon 24-70. But it will almost certainly be the case that the best copy a that Canon 24-70 design will be noticeably better than the worst copy of the Nikkor 24-70.
It's interesting that recent 'real world' comparisons between the D3X and 5D2 (and A900) seem to be confirming the relative performance of those cameras' sensors as described in graph format at DXOmark.
When lens reviewers make objective tests of lenses, using imatest for example, they should be aware of the general subjective impressions that might be available as well as other objective test reports of that lens. If the copy of the lens they are testing seems suspiciously a-typical, they should test another copy from a different batch.
Edit: From your post, it sound to me that your dissatisfaction with the Canon 24-70 could have been largely due to a misfocussing calibration. This is a problem which is not uncommon, and it's why recent models of Canon DSLR have an autofocussing micro-adjustment feature.
-
C'mon now, Slough. You are either being very naive or very disingenuous. Ever since the first full frame DSLR became available, the Canon 1Ds, people have frequently claimed that their lenses needed upgrading. Lenses which seemed satisfactory at the edges and in the corners on their earlier cropped format cameras, the D30 or D60, often appeared disturbingly soft in the corners on the 1Ds with a mere 11mp.
Just as one of the advantages of the APS-C format is better edge and corner performance with lenses that have been designed for full frame 35mm, one of the disadvantages of the full frame DSLR is the opposite, ie., relatively poor corner performance with the same lenses, and I do have the experience to comment even if you don't, because I've been using a full frame DSLR for the past 3 1/2 years (the 5D) and a number of cropped format DSLRs for the past 5 years.
Of course, not all lenses are equally bad in the corners and no lens is equally bad at all apertures or all focal lengths if it's a zoom. Stopping down often fixes the problem. The problem is certainly worse with wide angle lenses, which is why I went to the expense of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. These are focal lengths I use a lot and the 14-24/2.8 seems to be one of the few Nikkor lenses that is definitely better than any Canon equivalent, with regards to edge and corner performance. In fact, I'm so impressed with this lens I went to the additional expense of getting a D700 body for it. Using the lens with an adapter on my 5D was too restrictive. No autofocussing; guesswork regarding choice of aperture; a need to remove the battery after shooting otherwise it would go flat within a few days; an inability to autobracket exposure in Aperture priority mode, and probably a few other disadvantages I didn't discover.
The reason I'm interested in this thread is because the question posed by the OP interests me. I don't like having to always carry two cameras with me when out shooting, and I would therefore like a Nikkor lens which is the equivalent of the very useful and good quality Canon 24-105/F4 IS. There doesn't appear to be one. The closest is the Nikkor AF-S 24-120/F3.5-5.6 VR.
This is another Nikkor lens for which the Photozone test results almost caused me to fall off my chair. Edge performance at 24mm and full aperture is really bad, even on the D200. Knowing this, one could avoid using 24mm at full aperture, but it seems one would have to avoid using full aperture at other focal lengths also, if one were fussy about edge performance. Even at 70mm, maximum aperture is F5.3, which is virtually F5.6, and edge performance seems greatly lacking. At 120mm and F5.6, edge performance seem better, but the lens in general seems a bit soft at this FL. However, performance at 35mm seems quite respectable.
It looks as though the D700 will be a one-lens camera for me until Nikon come out with some improved lenses of the type that interest me. The 24-70/2.8 is a fine lens, but I happen to very much appreciate image stabilisation with my lenses. The 14-24 doesn't have image stabilisation, but also doesn't need it as much as the longer focal lengths.
"You are either being very naive or very disingenuous"
Neither. I was simply trying to find out the basis for your statement that any Nikon lens has issues on full frame.
And I think, though I might be mistaken, that the complaints from Canon users generally concern wide angle lenses. Since I am not a Canon users, I cannot say with any certainty.
The reason I was struck by your statement is that I am simply not aware of Nikon users complaining that most/all Nikon lenses have weak corners when used on the D700 or D3. As I said, there are issues with some wide angle lenses, but lenses such as the 17-35mm F2.8 zoom are superb when stopped down a few stops. There are some complaints about the 70-200 F2.8 AFS zoom at the long end even when stopped down, but only at the far corners. I think it helps to be precise rather than make sweeping statements which turn out to apply to a few lenses.
As I have indicated, the OP can find information on Rorslett's site, and on the Nikon Gear forum, where there are several posters who own and use a D3x which is a more severe test of lenses.
-
All lenses tend to suffer from weak corners.
Why then did you say "Nikkor" if that was your intention? An intent to be deliberately provocative, no doubt.
There are many lenses which deliver excellent corner performance. Most high quality lenses show very good corner performance when stopped down a bit. Most wide angles do not render sharp corners wide open, but there are some that do, i.e. 35/2 ZF.
As noted, tele primes, PC-E Nikkors, most macro lenses have excellent corner performance. The 24-70 at most of its FL range has very good evenness of sharpness across the image area.
Back to the original question, the 24-70 is excellent and would be the first choice of a FX Nikon user for a standard zoom at least until newer mid-aperture designs are brought to the market. It doesn't have VR which is probably why it is so good optically.
-
Why then did you say "Nikkor" if that was your intention? An intent to be deliberately provocative, no doubt.
Yes. Just checking on who's a Nikon fanboy.
-
Yes. Just checking on who's a Nikon fanboy.
There's no need for gratuitous offensiveness. Some of us use only one system, so cannot comment with any authority on other systems.
-
There's no need for gratuitous offensiveness. Some of us use only one system, so cannot comment with any authority on other systems.
Reknaw!
-
Reknaw!
hgis/
New low, Ray.
-
Reknaw!
That does not deserve a response.
Fortunately someone has already summed you up quite well:
I'm someone who doesn't like your tendency to monopolize threads, express opinions on anything regardless if you know what you're talking about or not and trying to always have the last word (make the last post).
-
No matter how sharp the lens is, an adequate shutter speed or a tripod is always needed to realize that extra performance. If you usually use a tripod, then the lack of VR or IS is not such an issue.
I'm a documentary wedding photographer and a tripod doesn't sit well with that. In fact, I can say I've never used one during any wedding.
With the superb high ISO performance of the D3 body I find shutter speed issues far less frequent, and I'll always have a second body on me with an f1.4 lens mounted. Problem solved.
It may well have been a calibration issue - but the fact that it was so damn inconsistent suggested otherwise to me. It's the single biggest complaint I hear from other wedding photographers about the EF 24-70mm. Either we're all doing something wrong, which I doubt, or the lenses are all in need of calibration, which doesn't paint a pretty picture for Canon's QC, or the lens is simply prone to this behaviour. Knowing the quality of the photographers I've discussed this with I think it's the latter. We are all also in agreement that the Nikkor is a better lens. It's that simple.
-
We are all also in agreement that the Nikkor is a better lens. It's that simple.
And that is very useful information to have. If I'd always wanted a Canon 24-70mm lens but had never got around to getting one, then I would take this opportunity to buy the Nikkor equivalent for my D700. However, I'm not a wedding photographer and I do appreciate image stabilisation. I often like to have an extensive DoF in my shots although I sometimes shoot in poor lighting where I'm prepared to sacrifice DoF, and sometimes I might simply want a shallow DoF in good light, in which case a lack of VR is not a problem.
After a number of years of photography in all sorts of situations, one gets an idea of the sort of lens one uses most often. For me, they are mostly lenses with image stabilisation, or very wide angle lenses where lack of image satabilisation is less of a concern.
I can find no good reason for my style of photography to buy lenses without image stabilisation, unless I have to. In the case of the Nikkor 14-24 purchase, there was no other option. If Sony had produced a wide-angle zoom on a par with the Nikkor, I would probably have bought an A900 instead of the D700.
-
I have a 24-70. Unbelievably sharp, nice OOF rendering, etc.. great lens. I understand why the 14-24 generates so much interest, a 24-70 is for many a range not very interesting, I think this is one of the reasons why this lens appears to be underrated or underestimated. This lens performs better than many primes I have owned or own in this range. Anyway, what I like more about it, its handling is very nice, a no-effort/excellent results lens. I am very happy with it.
Not sure why Nikon leaves out VR in the 'shorter' range, anything I might mention is pure speculation. I just hope leaving out VR has a pretty good reason because I would have liked to have it even if I am fine without it.
People are welcome to raw files if they want to.