A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lens opinion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 12th 15, 11:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 11:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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]
  #14  
Old January 12th 15, 01:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 01:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 02:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 02:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 03:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default 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  
Old January 12th 15, 03:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.