Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810  (Read 24493 times)

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2014, 06:20:14 pm »

I know that people want to save weight where they can and I do too.  The OP didn't say if he planned to use this package hiking.  If I'm stepping away from the car for more than a little distance, I'm carrying a backpack that has water that weighs more than my camera and lens.

Somewhere above I explained that by "small and portable" I only meant that I don't want to carry a big pile of prime lenses, which is an alternative I considered and rejected. I do what I do now carrying Canon 1-series bodies and their 24-70-II in a pack with 5 more lenses and other stuff that's so heavy I can hardly lift it. I take out what I don't need if I hike, but relatively speaking a D810 and the lenses in question is considerably lighter.
Logged
- Dean

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2014, 06:42:58 pm »

Interesting reviews here
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/
showing that the Nikon performs best at longer distances

Here's another review showing the Nikon as a better performer.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

So my problem now is that while overall system performance may be better, there is no 24-70mm zoom that equals the performance of the Canon model I use now. Buying a lens that's not as good to put in front of a better image sensor really bothers me, and the only way to avoid that is buying and carrying a pile of primes, which I really don't want to do. Metabones is looking better...
Logged
- Dean

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 888
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2014, 08:19:57 pm »

There is no other 24-70 as good as Canons 24-70 f/2.8 II but does it really matter would be a legit question I think.  From what you ahve described as your use, my guess is that the vast majority of the time you are shooting at f/5.6 or smaller apertures where the differences really start to disappear.
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1205
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2014, 09:15:41 pm »

I second that. I bought one for my 6D. Excellent IQ and built quality. Estabilization superb. I sold it because the zoom ring moves "counter canon". With the Nikon it will be perfect.
Eduardo

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is currently the best 24-70 optically with a Nikon mount.  It's marginally better than the Nikon 24-70 for resolution but has slightly more linear distortions (corrected by most RAW converters if automatic lens corrections are turned on) and is stabilized.  The lens is a little more plasticky than the Nikon (or Canon 24-70) but still built relatively well.  If I ever lose or destroy my Nikon 24-70, I would buy this, get better optics, get stabilization if I want it, and pay less money.  Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 09:17:50 pm by uaiomex »
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2014, 12:57:09 am »

I've got a pristine Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8  for sell. It's listed on Fred Miranda and LL. It is a 10. I've had it for 18 months and have used it on only a few occasions. I have migrated over to M43 (Olympus) due to arthritis. I am not comfortable handling the D800. The 24-70 has less than 500 clicks. It is tack sharp throughout the range. Pictures are on the FM buy & sell forum. I am asking $1395 (firm) plus $15 shipping CONUS. It comes with UV and CPL filters, the box, papers, caps, hood, and bag. I am the only owner, and I purchased it from B & H.
Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1772
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2014, 04:54:30 am »

I have a bunch of Leica R's with Nikon mounts my favorite is my 28-90 superb. I purchased the Tamron 24-70 because of the stabilization and it is so good it holds its own against the Leica!
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2015, 08:34:33 am »

There is no other 24-70 as good as Canons 24-70 f/2.8 II but does it really matter would be a legit question I think.  From what you ahve described as your use, my guess is that the vast majority of the time you are shooting at f/5.6 or smaller apertures where the differences really start to disappear.

It's definitely a legit question. Unfortunately the longer distance "landscape test" (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/) at F/8 shows a big difference in favor of the Nikon lens at the edge of the image, and they explain why. In the test using flat resolution charts each image (center, corner, etc) is focused separately to keep any field curvature from screwing up results. Here the Tamron is clearly better. The "landscape test" is focused in the center, and the edges of the Tamron image in these tests is dramatically softer than the Nikon all the way through F/8 which is the smallest aperture tested. At the same time every other test I've seen shows the Nikon as having off the charts CA at every aperture and sharpness that's so-so. It's something of a dilemma.
Logged
- Dean

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 888
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2015, 09:41:08 am »

It's definitely a legit question. Unfortunately the longer distance "landscape test" (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/) at F/8 shows a big difference in favor of the Nikon lens at the edge of the image, and they explain why. In the test using flat resolution charts each image (center, corner, etc) is focused separately to keep any field curvature from screwing up results. Here the Tamron is clearly better. The "landscape test" is focused in the center, and the edges of the Tamron image in these tests is dramatically softer than the Nikon all the way through F/8 which is the smallest aperture tested. At the same time every other test I've seen shows the Nikon as having off the charts CA at every aperture and sharpness that's so-so. It's something of a dilemma.

Thanks, I had not seen that test although neither the Canon nor the Nikon mount sample I tested gave up anything to the Nikon 24-70 which, as you state, has some pretty astronomical CA in comparison.  There's no free lunch with zooms although the Canon comes closest :)  Perhaps we are back to an a7 with the Canon lens attached :)
Logged

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2015, 08:29:46 pm »

I'm still in the Canon camp with a 5D3. What is currently keeping me there is the new breed of Canon lenses - 17mm TSE, 24-70 f2.8, 70 -200mm f2.8 and the new 400mm f4 ii. I just wish they would pull finger with a new sensor.  How hard can it be ?
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2550
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2015, 10:00:53 pm »

I'm still in the Canon camp with a 5D3. What is currently keeping me there is the new breed of Canon lenses - 17mm TSE, 24-70 f2.8, 70 -200mm f2.8 and the new 400mm f4 ii. I just wish they would pull finger with a new sensor.  How hard can it be ?

As a landscape photographer, I am somewhat lucky in the fact that I don't need AF (except when I am not shooting landscapes) and can use Canon (or other) lenses on the A7r. Sony's compressed RAW is nowhere near as good as Nikon's RAW, but still gives a better image quality and more detail than Canon.
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2015, 09:47:59 am »

I'm still in the Canon camp with a 5D3. What is currently keeping me there is the new breed of Canon lenses - 17mm TSE, 24-70 f2.8, 70 -200mm f2.8 and the new 400mm f4 ii. I just wish they would pull finger with a new sensor.  How hard can it be ?

It's either pretty hard or Canon has been more interested in developing everything under the sun except high DR sensors. I suspect it's both. I have no desire to move to Nikon for wildlife photography but it's a different story for landscapes. I'd have purchased a D810 months ago if they made a better 24-70mm zoom. Given the usefulness and popularity of that focal length range I'm amazed they haven't upgraded it. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 seems fine, but I'm not sure why they didn't bother weather/dust sealing it.
Logged
- Dean

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2015, 11:13:25 am »

I'd have purchased a D810 months ago if they made a better 24-70mm zoom.

We all make our own choices, but I find this somewhat silly.  I'm all for testing cameras and lenses, but one must understand how the test results apply in the real world. I know for example that the DR of the 810 only really buys me anything in extreme situations.  I also know that lens test on flat field targets do not directly correlate to real world shooting.  We all want to get the best we can from the money we spend on gear, but the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is probably the most utilized lens for commercial photographs, landscape and otherwise. 

If we look at the 14-24mm f/2.8G, the 16-35 f/4G VR and the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, the 14-24mm is clearly the best optical performer and any test will show that.  But if you shoot 3 images with these 3 lenses and process and print them with the same care, in all but the most extreme cases, you wouldn't be able to tell which were shot with what lens.
Logged

jwstl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2015, 02:30:49 pm »

An upgraded 24-70 2.8 would probably include VR and possibly better performance at 2.8 but I doubt you'll see a big jump in performance from 8-16. If that's what you need from a 24-70, either the current Nikon or Tamron would work well.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2015, 07:59:20 pm »

An upgraded 24-70 2.8 would probably include VR and possibly better performance at 2.8 but I doubt you'll see a big jump in performance from 8-16. If that's what you need from a 24-70, either the current Nikon or Tamron would work well.

The funny part, considering this thread, is that it is rumored that an upgrade to the 24-70mm has just not been a priority because it is already very good and well bought.
Logged

joneil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • This is what beer does to you....
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2015, 08:35:30 am »

  My 24-70mm is a fantastic lens, and works great on my D800.  But for long hikes, it is a heavy pain in the butt.  If I am not walking far, or just in one area, I love to use it.   But for long hikes in the woods, or just a day I plan to do a lot of walking, I am using mostly primes myself now. 

   There is no perfect answer.   Any brand of zoom that will give you all you want optically is going to be big, heavy and expensive.  You use what you need in relation to what you are shooting.

     The other thing, and forgive me, i do not mean to be cruel, but this whole thread is giving me a bit of a good laugh.   Years ago, in the days of film, you know, when we all still lived in caves,  wore bearskins  and connected online using 300 baud acustic modems,   we used to have this same arguement.   Nikon had the best bodies but Canon had the best lenses.    In many ways, digital hasn't changed a thing, it has just amplified old arguements.
:)

have a good one
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2015, 09:42:19 am »

The other thing, and forgive me, i do not mean to be cruel, but this whole thread is giving me a bit of a good laugh.   Years ago, in the days of film, you know, when we all still lived in caves,  wore bearskins  and connected online using 300 baud acustic modems,   we used to have this same arguement.   Nikon had the best bodies but Canon had the best lenses.    In many ways, digital hasn't changed a thing, it has just amplified old arguements.
:)

have a good one
Two major changes since film:

1. Advancement in manufacturing technology has made the manufacture of optics and lens mechanicals much easier and more consistent such that, in general, lenses today perform better.[/li][/list]

2. On the other hand, 35mm film basically had about 8-10MP of usable data and optics usually outperformed the film.  Today, we have hit the point where the sensor can outperform the lens.

Back in film days it was a wash better body/better lenses.  Now, if one assumes Canon lenses are superior to Nikon, then if/when Canon achieves better sensors, they will have an instant performance advantage.  All this only matters at the marginal cases where one is printing poster size prints or trying to display electronically at gigantic sizes
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2015, 04:06:39 pm »

My sincere thanks for all the replies, but this has gone beyond anything I intended. I only asked about aspects of the Tamron 24-70mm lens that don't show in the test charts, but the ancillary replies have actually been quite helpful.

I've already got the best performance Canon is able to offer, I understand what extremes are, and if I didn't want more performance specifically at the extremes I wouldn't be investigating this. What I don't understand is how ignoring lens issues at one "extreme" is any different than ignoring some shadow noise and lack of DR at different "extremes". Both matter sometimes, and when they don't the equipment one uses doesn't make much difference. Using the terms of dswager, I have to wonder whether it's worthwhile to give up a lens that makes no difference "in all but the most extreme cases" for DR that "only really buys me anything in [different] extreme situations". If it's a wash I can save a lot of money and just keep on doing what I've been doing. I think answers, if there are any, depend on exactly what extremes are in question.

Unfortunately, going into this I wasn't prepared to trade corner and edge sharpness for more dynamic range, not to mention much more distortion at both ends of the zoom range and astronomical CA. If all the 24-70mm lenses in question (Canon/Nikon/Tamron) produced similar results across the frame by F/8 I wouldn't care, but every test I've seen shows that's not the case, and the differences are far from subtle. Before any feathers are ruffled I'm not saying any of this equipment falls into the lousy range. It's all shades of good, and I haven't ruled out buying some of it, but I think it's important to know what the trade-offs are.

If I go forward with this I'd get the Nikon 24-70 lens for reasons that include sample to sample variability, corner sharpness when center focused at real world distances, and other characteristics that match the 70-200 F/4. I still think the 24-70mm lenses in question give up a lot to the Canon version, which is comparable to many primes. I also think the 70-200 F/4 is as good or better than the Canon version optically. The lack of weather/dust sealing bothers me because on multiple occasions I've encountered sudden sand/dust storms where I think it matters, and it's not uncommon for me to shoot in the rain. Still, it doesn't bother me enough to carry the much heavier and sealed F/2.8 lens. I'd think differently if there were a tangible optical advantage at smaller apertures.

Finally, I'd just like to say that proprietary lens mounts really suck. You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.
Logged
- Dean

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2015, 04:50:19 pm »

I've already got the best performance Canon is able to offer, I understand what extremes are, and if I didn't want more performance specifically at the extremes I wouldn't be investigating this. What I don't understand is how ignoring lens issues at one "extreme" is any different than ignoring some shadow noise and lack of DR at different "extremes". Both matter sometimes, and when they don't the equipment one uses doesn't make much difference. Using the terms of dswager, I have to wonder whether it's worthwhile to give up a lens that makes no difference "in all but the most extreme cases" for DR that "only really buys me anything in [different] extreme situations". If it's a wash I can save a lot of money and just keep on doing what I've been doing. I think answers, if there are any, depend on exactly what extremes are in question.

If you are looking at 'general' performance, then yes I agree.  But if you shoot most often at one extreme, then it makes sense to give up something at the other extreme.  I shoot both landscapes (stopped down) and portraits/candids (closer to wide open).  The current 24-70mm is fine for me because stopped down performs as I want it too and wide open, I don't mind softer corners because I want them softer anyway.  It is why the 85mm f/1.4D is fine to me even though it is much softer at the edges/corners than the new 85mm f/1.4G.  What I shoot with it negates the benefit.

And considering the new 300mm f/4G VR that Nikon introduced today (3" shorter and 1/2 the weight), I am now wondering if Nikon won't release a new smaller, lighter, VR version of the 24-70mm f/2.8.  Most people indicated that a VR version of this lens would be too big and heavy.  Not so sure anymore.
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2015, 07:11:54 pm »

...I am now wondering if Nikon won't release a new smaller, lighter, VR version of the 24-70mm f/2.8.
There certainly seems to be some demand for a VR lens in this range, and that probably gives Tamron lots of customers. I'm just not sure whether the technology used to make the 300mm smaller and lighter is readily applicable to a zoom lens, and if it would be economically viable. Stabilization made a big difference for me on long lenses, but because I always shoot from a tripod it doesn't interest me much in the shorter focal lengths.
Logged
- Dean

joneil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • This is what beer does to you....
Re: 24-70 mm Lens for Nikon D810
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2015, 09:27:43 am »


Back in film days it was a wash better body/better lenses.  Now, if one assumes Canon lenses are superior to Nikon, then if/when Canon achieves better sensors, they will have an instant performance advantage.  All this only matters at the marginal cases where one is printing poster size prints or trying to display electronically at gigantic sizes


-snip-
   My point was NEVER which was better, film or digital, Nikon or Canon.  No, my point is this:  30 years ago, at camera clubs, in local photo newspapers, in letters to the editor in some of the photo magazines, and later, before everyone had the internet and we all used BBS systems (remember Fidonet anyone), and even when the internet first started, before sites like this when we used to all chat on usenet groups (anyone remember those?), the *exact same arguments* we are having now took place back then.

   Frankly I don't know if Nikon or Canon had better film bodies or not, I never cared then, don't now either.   But the point is, I was there, saw it, heard it, remember it very clearly.  We used to have those agruments in amatuer astronomy all the time.    Many people felt that Nikon ahd better film bodies for astro-photography (FM and FM2), but many felt the Canon lenses  were better at pinpoint star images.  

      I have some old photo magazines, World war 2 era, around here, and i remember in one of them reading something about should one use a Wollensak or a Kodak lens on a 4x5 graphic press camera.

    So although technology has advanced greatly, for lack of better word, IMO, the "fanboy arguements" have remained the same.

    Technology changes, human nature does not.  

    At some point in the future, when we are all using 500 mp holographic cameras, I bet you dollars to donuts the same arguements will still be taking place too.

    But if you want some advice from a crusty old, grey haired fart like myself, the bottom line is this - get your butt out there and just enjoy photography.  Do photography more than you talk about it.  Life goes by too fast, and there is no reset switch to do things over.   You can waste far too much time getting into which is better.  At the end of the day, for me, I would prefer walking out there in the bush or on the beach with a Lomo camera than spending a day inside talking about photography.  Both Nikon and Canon make superb gear, screw who is better, just get one or the other, get out there and do it.
good luck
:)
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up