If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
In article 201501112147489605-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
I've considered three lenses, all Nikon: 24-70/f3.5 24-85/f3.5 24-120/f3.5 I have no experience with any of these lenses but from what I have read I have homed in on the 24-85/f3.5. If the gun fight out in the street can be calmed down and bashing and crashing in the car parkeliminates the human drivers, I would be interested in the thoughts of the few knowledgable people left standing. I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII. Well, VR, not VRII I don't know of a 24-70mm f/3.5, but I am familiar with the 24-70mm f/2.8, which is one of the Nikkor Holy Trinity of f/2.8 lenses. If you want a sharp, fast, normal, mid-range zoom look no further than the 24-70mm f/2.8. It does not have VR, but it doesn't really need it, and it is not cheap. The 24-70/f2.8 is an awesome lens by any standard, but it's hardly a good all-purpose carry-around lens like the 24-120/f4, it's really big in comparison. So for value and versatility my vote goes to the 24-120 f/4 VRII. As is mine. -- Sandman[.net] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson: If the consumer grade quality doesn't phase you, and you can live with a walk around lens that stops at 85mm, go for it. It costs half the price of doing it right. The right lens is the 24-120mm f/4. It has greater reach, has better build, and has at least passing optical quality (it has been on everyone's "good enough for the D800" list). Ah, but is it good enough for the D750? I dunno (yet). Of course it is. If it's good enough for the high-resolution D800, then it's good enough for the D750. Three people have told you to get the 24-120/f4 now -- Sandman[.net] |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:22:45 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: The right lens is the 24-120mm f/4. It has greater reach, has better build, and has at least passing optical quality (it has been on everyone's "good enough for the D800" list). Ah, but is it good enough for the D750? I dunno (yet). The D800 runs circles around a D750 when it comes to stressing a lens. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:09:19 -0800, Bill W wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I'm contemplating replacing my trusty D33 with A D750 and the question arises as towhat I use as a basic carry around lens. Eric, we can only go on what you say. "A basic carry around lens" has specific connotations. Everyone thought that is what you wanted us to discuss. Now you say this: I,m not after a do-everything walk-around lens. I want a *good* lens to fill the gap below the 70-200. My revised current thinking is that the 24-70 may be the way to go. But thoughts change. That is just exactly the opposite. First, a lens to "fill the gap below the 70-200mm" sounds like a slice if idiocy! There are people who buy lenses by the focal length... This one covers from Point A to Point B, that one from B to C, and another will do C to whatever. That is nice for clean administration, easy filing systems for paperwork, and other great attributes for a beaurocracy. It has nothing to do with photography. Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around", and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need. That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape lens either. Go to google and search on this: "street sweeper" lens Put the quotes in, with the word lens out of the quotes. The idea is to have *functionality* from wide angle to moderate telephoto available in an instant. Ideally it involves many other qualities, but those are the defining points. The fact is that with modern technology it can't be done of the wide end is 18mm, or even 20mm. And with a 24mm wide angle, a 5X zoom range means 120mm is the limit. I'd love to have even 135mm, but would really like a 20mm to 150mm; except a zoom range like that cannot have the required optical performance. But the upper limit to focal length is not based on where some other lens that you may have starts. That is valid only if you are likely to carry two bodies, each with the two different lenses. You are older than I am by a bit, and I can't to that anymore! Can you? The fact that you have a 70-200mm lens does not affect how to define what you'd use for a "basic carry around lens". If it happens that you don't really want a "carry around", but a mid-range zoom for assignments, that's different, and a 24-70mm is terrific. But it isn't very good as a walk around either. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
Sandman wrote:
In article 201501112147489605-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII. Well, VR, not VRII Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has. Note that lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8G VR II should be parsed as "(70-200mm f/2.8G VR) II", not "70-200mm f/2.8G (VR II)". The II applies to the lens, not to the VR. Nikon does not designate second generation VR with a lens marking or title distinction. If Nikon were to introduce a successor to the current 24-120mm lens, with exactly the same VR but with some other internal changes, it might well be called a 24-120mm f/4G VR II. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII. Well, VR, not VRII Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has. there isn't a 2nd generation but there is. you're contradicting yourself. Note that lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8G VR II should be parsed as "(70-200mm f/2.8G VR) II", not "70-200mm f/2.8G (VR II)". The II applies to the lens, not to the VR. nikon says otherwise. in fact nikon specifically parenthesizes (vr ii): http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...enses/AF-S-DX- NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html Versatile, high-power 11x zoom with Vibration Reduction (VR II) ...Its equipped with Nikonšs advanced Vibration Reduction (VR II) for remarkable image clarity even when handheld shooting or in demanding lighting situations. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI KKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html With a f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture, VR II image stabilization and Nikonšs advanced lens technologies... Fast f/2.8 maximum aperture and VR II Nikon does not designate second generation VR with a lens marking or title distinction. yes they do. see above. If Nikon were to introduce a successor to the current 24-120mm lens, with exactly the same VR but with some other internal changes, it might well be called a 24-120mm f/4G VR II. other way around. if nikon used the exact same optical formula but improved only the stabilization, it would be called vr ii. however, there's no point in doing that, which is why when they update a lens, they update more than just one thing. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII. Well, VR, not VRII Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has. there isn't a 2nd generation but there is. you're contradicting yourself. No contradiction. "VR II" is a nomemclature that Nikon does not use to label their lenses. There is a second generation of VR, but it is not called VR II on a lens label. Note that lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8G VR II should be parsed as "(70-200mm f/2.8G VR) II", not "70-200mm f/2.8G (VR II)". The II applies to the lens, not to the VR. nikon says otherwise. in fact nikon specifically parenthesizes (vr ii): http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...enses/AF-S-DX- NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html Versatile, high-power 11x zoom with Vibration Reduction (VR II) When they want to make that point, they do it with parenthesises. They do not label lenses with VR II. They may well use that terminology in other circumstances. ...Its equipped with Nikonšs advanced Vibration Reduction (VR II) for remarkable image clarity even when handheld shooting or in demanding lighting situations. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI KKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html With a f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture, VR II image stabilization and Nikonšs advanced lens technologies... Fast f/2.8 maximum aperture and VR II Nikon does not designate second generation VR with a lens marking or title distinction. yes they do. see above. That is not what you show above. If Nikon were to introduce a successor to the current 24-120mm lens, with exactly the same VR but with some other internal changes, it might well be called a 24-120mm f/4G VR II. other way around. if nikon used the exact same optical formula but improved only the stabilization, it would be called vr ii. however, there's no point in doing that, which is why when they update a lens, they update more than just one thing. You still miss the point that the 24-120mm f/4 VR lens does have the latest VR technology from Nikon. You want to call it VR II? Go ahead, but that isn't what Nikon calls it when they label a lens. Again: The 24-120mm f/4 has what you are calling VR II. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 12:44:10 UTC, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around", and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need. That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape lens either. A friend of mine is considering the tamron 18-270mm as the walk around lens. I think the quality is a bit on the low side and I'd prefer the canon 55-250mm to complememt the 500D with the standard kit lens of 18-55 that she brought with it. The idea of a walk around is one lens. Needing two just doesn't do the job. Hence in that one sense that 18-270mm is better than a pair that splits the spectrum at 55mm. But a 15x zoom range means it necessarily is going to be a relatively poor quality lens. If that is acceptable, she'll do fine. If she wants to make high quality large prints, it is never going to make the grade. I'm not familiar enough with Canon's lens lineup to give a recommendation, but they no doubt have something in the 4x or 5x zoom range that makes a good walk around with professional quality optics. She may or may not find that more useful despite the higher price. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
... On Monday, 12 January 2015 12:44:10 UTC, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around", and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need. That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape lens either. A friend of mine is considering the tamron 18-270mm as the walk around lens. I think the quality is a bit on the low side and I'd prefer the canon 55-250mm to complememt the 500D with the standard kit lens of 18-55 that she brought with it. A superzoom like the Tamron 18-270mm is a compromise in quality in order to have such a wide focal range. I think they're getting better. I've got a new Sigma 18-200mm Contemporary lens and it's quite good. I do like to keep a superzoom on hand for when I don't want to travel with anything other than one lens and a camera - I actually bought a superzoom with my wife in mind. She has no interest in changing lenses when she uses one of my cameras. Sigma has a new 18-300mm Contemporary lens and it seems to be quite good. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Lens opinion
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
... I'm contemplating replacing my trusty D33 with A D750 and the question arises as towhat I use as a basic carry around lens. At the moment I'm using a Nikon 16-85/f2.8 with which I'm quite satisfied but this is a DX lens and won't handle the switch to a FX camera. I'm planning on keeping my 70-200/f2.8 I've considered three lenses, all Nikon: 24-70/f3.5 24-85/f3.5 24-120/f3.5 I have no experience with any of these lenses but from what I have read I have homed in on the 24-85/f3.5. If the gun fight out in the street can be calmed down and bashing and crashing in the car parkeliminates the human drivers, I would be interested in the thoughts of the few knowledgable people left standing. I can't speak about using any Nikon lenses but my Canon 24-105mm f4 lens is my "go to" lens with my 7D. The 24-120mm Nikon may fit the bill for you like my 24-105mm lens does for me. If you can find one, the Sigma 24-105mm f4 lens is an excellent lens to consider. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
urgent opinion needed digital lens with film camera | nicholas | Digital Photography | 12 | May 15th 08 06:22 PM |
Your opinion -Canon 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 kit lens owners | asdf3b | Digital Photography | 11 | December 19th 07 11:28 PM |
Sigma lens opinion | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | August 12th 06 07:22 AM |
Sigma lens opinion | Wizzard | Digital Photography | 2 | August 11th 06 09:20 AM |
Best one, your opinion??? | D O'Reilly | Digital Photography | 1 | July 1st 04 11:39 PM |