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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Trevor" wrote: When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made to match as well, then why not indeed! FWIW, although it isn't a superzoom, the new Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just as good, across the whole frame, as the very best primes in that range. (Really: in insane pixel-peeping tests, I can't tell it from the 24TSE II, even when the TSE isn't shifted.) Good to hear after the original 24-70 f2.8 wasn't a favourite of many. There would still be times you'd probably use a 50mm f1.4 (or perhaps the f1.2 :-) instead though. This has me being a very happy camper. Carrying and swapping even three primes is a pain and it's real nice to be able to get the framing exactly right in camera. Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. Why, a good fixed 16mm would probably be enough to complement a 24-70 AFAIC. 24-40 overlap seems unnecessary except for those with one body and an aversion to changing lenses too often. (more complex is irrelevent if the quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!) The 24-70/2.8 II is pricey and heavy. But a multiple prime kit runs up the money and weight surprisingly quickly. Of course, you have to heft that whole weight every time. Right, there is a difference between the size/weight of what's on the end of your camera, and what's in your bag. But there are always so many trade offs to be made that everyone has to decide what's best for their own purposes and budget. Trevor. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
Rich wrote:
David Taylor wrote in : You're thinking an "L" version? I suspect a Pro would have little need for such a zoom, preferring fixed lenses and multiple cameras (with an assistant to carry same...). They only choose fixed lenses because of speed and quality. And size and weight and price and aperture size. Look up the parameters of a 200-500mm f/2.8 some day. If the speed wasn't as important today, and if they could get the same quality out of a long zoom, why wouldn't they use it? If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. And they'd still wouldn't want to carry or pay for a 200-500 f/2.8. -Wolfgang |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:48:54 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: : : "Trevor" wrote: : : When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will : simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made to : match as well, then why not indeed! : : : FWIW, although it isn't a superzoom, the new Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just as : good, across the whole frame, as the very best primes in that range. : (Really: in insane pixel-peeping tests, I can't tell it from the 24TSE II, : even when the TSE isn't shifted.) : : This has me being a very happy camper. Carrying and swapping even three : primes is a pain and it's real nice to be able to get the framing exactly : right in camera. : : Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the : 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. : : : (more complex is irrelevent if the : quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!) : : : The 24-70/2.8 II is pricey and heavy. But a multiple prime kit runs up the : money and weight surprisingly quickly. Of course, you have to heft that : whole weight every time. Let's face it, David: lenses are getting bigger and heavier across the board. I remember how liberated we all felt when light, small 35mm cameras replaced heavy press and roll-film cameras. But now we've pretty much reverted to Square One. Bob |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
David Taylor wrote:
On 03/11/2012 00:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: [] There is already one. It's not doing the 18-27mm part, though --- which doesn't matter, since it's a full frame lens. Came out 2004 ... [] -Wolfgang Yes, I've handled one of those on a D800 - a very weighty beast! How did you get an 'L' version (i.e. a Canon lens) on that Nikon? -Wolfgang |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
David J. Littleboy wrote:
Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and Canon the better long lenses. :-) -Wolfgang |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and Canon the better long lenses. :-) That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:38:30 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote: : David J. Littleboy wrote: : : Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the : 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. : : That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and : Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and : Canon the better long lenses. :-) : : : That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII. Last night I attended a lecture by Gregory Heisler, one of Canon's "Explorers of Light". He was a very entertaining speaker and held us spellbound for more than two hours. He had so many good things to say about the 24mm TS that this morning I revised my wish list at work to put it first, ahead of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. (Don't laugh. The top item on last year's work wish list was the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and it's in my equipment backpack eight feet from where I'm sitting.) ;^) Bob |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 11/13/2012 3:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: David J. Littleboy
wrote: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. Interestingly I have a Canon 10-22/4 for their crop frame cameras and it is an exceedingly fine lens. Truly remarkably low lateral chromatic aberration. Doug McDonald |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 11/13/2012 9:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:38:30 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" wrote: : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote: : David J. Littleboy wrote: : : Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the : 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. : : That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and : Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and : Canon the better long lenses. :-) : : : That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII. Last night I attended a lecture by Gregory Heisler, one of Canon's "Explorers of Light". He was a very entertaining speaker and held us spellbound for more than two hours. He had so many good things to say about the 24mm TS that this morning I revised my wish list at work to put it first, ahead of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. (Don't laugh. The top item on last year's work wish list was the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and it's in my equipment backpack eight feet from where I'm sitting.) ;^) Bob Sunday I found two of my old lenses. The Nikkor 20mm f.4 and my old Nikkor 24mm f2.8. Both are pre Ai lenses that I converted to Ai. Both had been sitting in a box for over twenty years. (I had forgotten I had them.) This weekend they will be officially unretired. It's been so long that finding them was like getting a new toy. I hope they have no resentment about their long period of neglect. -- Peter |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... On 11/13/2012 3:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh. Interestingly I have a Canon 10-22/4 for their crop frame cameras and it is an exceedingly fine lens. Truly remarkably low lateral chromatic aberration. You mean the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 EFS? Pretty good for a non pro lens. But obviously not a match for the 24-70f2.8 II, or with FF camera's. Trevor. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? | Ray Fischer | Digital Photography | 0 | May 22nd 10 09:19 PM |
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? | Ray Fischer | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | May 22nd 10 09:19 PM |
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera | Chris Macnamara | Digital Photography | 0 | April 15th 07 10:12 AM |
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera | Chris Macnamara | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 15th 07 10:12 AM |
Bessa R Kit, piece by piece.... | Jeffrey Metzger | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | February 27th 05 03:36 PM |