Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Good zoom-lens for Nikon? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t749648-good-zoom-lens-for-nikon.html)

Sandman 06-09-2011 06:34 AM

Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
have a larger aperture throughout.

I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
course.

What other (FX) lenses should I look at?

--
Sandman[.net]

David J Taylor 06-09-2011 08:18 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
> have a larger aperture throughout.
>
> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
> course.
>
> What other (FX) lenses should I look at?
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]


Your Tamron lens is a crop-frame DX lens. For low light at low cots, I
recently bought the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/

which is also a DX lens, and which performed very well for taking the
Northern Lights. It's not a zoom, of course.

Cheers,
David


Sandman 06-09-2011 08:48 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <ispvkv$5nd$1@dont-email.me>,
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
> > would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
> > have a larger aperture throughout.
> >
> > I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
> > throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
> > I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
> > course.
> >
> > What other (FX) lenses should I look at?
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]

>
> Your Tamron lens is a crop-frame DX lens.


No, it's the FX version, full frame. I have both, however, one for my
D80 as well, that's the DX version. I just mixed the naming of them
up. It's the 28-300/3.5-6.3 lens I was in reference to.

<http://www.dpreview.com/products/tam...-300_3p5-6p3_d
i_vc>

This is the one I have for the D80, which is DX:

<http://www.dpreview.com/products/tam...-200_3p5-6p3_d
i_ii>

> For low light at low cots, I recently bought the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/


Which is a very nice fixed lens. I *love* my 50/f1.4 lens. But I was
looking for a nice zoom lens here.





--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman 06-09-2011 09:07 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <b001v6hg3ljch6avfuk44d2hdo8hg0hl67@4ax.com>,
Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> >So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
> >would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
> >have a larger aperture throughout.
> >
> >I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
> >throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
> >I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
> >course.
> >
> >What other (FX) lenses should I look at?

>
>
> If you want excellent sharpness and good low light ability, I suggest
> that you should look at fixed focal length lenses.


I have the Sigma 28/2.8, the Nikon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 85/1.4. They
are all excellent lenses in every respect. I use them extensively when
doing portraits.

However, yesterday I was at my kids school class BBQ party down at the
beach, and brought my 50/1.4 and my aformentioned Tamron glass. The
Tamron stayed on the longest, since being able to zoom was more
important than superior aperture. Yet, with that said - and also
saying that the Tamron is very decent lens - I was curious as to what
lenses I could find in the spectrum between my Tamron zoom lens and my
high quality fixed lenses that were still zoom lenses.

As I said, the Nikon 24-120/4 is a contender, but I wanted to know if
there were any more.

> Zoom lenses always involve optical compromises and usually only
> perform well if you buy the expensive pro-grade f/2.8 versions.


Absolutely. And I also absolutely love my 70-200/2.8 lens, allthough
it's a bit too big to lug around on the aforemntioned occasion :)

> If your camera body has an AF motor built-in, one of the best value
> lenses is the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Buy used. You don't need the
> later D version - the earlier version is very cheap. You will be
> blown away by the sharp results and the low light ability.


Again, I have the even better f1.4 version of that very lens. It's
astoundingly awesome.

<snip>

> If you really *must* have a zoom lens, look for a good used example of
> the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G. It is a sharp performer, but it
> exhibits noticeable distortion. However, the distortion is classic
> barrel(wide)/pincushion(tele) and is quite easily to correct in
> post-processing. So with a little input from you, the results should
> be excellent. NOTE: Avoid the previous and later versions of the
> 24-85mm, neither of which performs as well as the f/3.5-4.5.


Curious, since the aperture is the same as on my Tamron, what would I
gain with this lens?

The newer version seems a lot better:

<http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_24-85_2p8-4d>

24-85/2.8, and a very good price as well.

> Finally, there is my long-time favourite zoom which is the AF Nikkor
> 35-70mm f/2.8D. There is also a non-D version. The zoom range is
> only 2X but you are rewarded with excellent sharpness and very low
> distortion. It was designed way back when, but it is still a solid
> performer on digital sensors.


The current version that comes closest seems to be

<http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_28-70_2p8>

But I fear that the zoom length may be too short to consider it.

The dream glass would be a a nice 28-300/2.8 lens :)

> As a general principle, the greater the zoom range, the more optical
> compromises have to be made. 18-200mm lenses with an 11X zoom range
> sell well but will ultimately disappoint because ED glass and moulded
> aspherical elements can only go so far when it comes to reducing
> distortion and aberrations.


Absolutely.

> So, generally, the best performing lenses have a zoom range of 1X. ;-)


I'm looking for a good choice in between :)



--
Sandman[.net]

David J Taylor 06-09-2011 11:12 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-B1FD75.10485009062011@News.Individual.NET...
[]
> No, it's the FX version, full frame. I have both, however, one for my
> D80 as well, that's the DX version. I just mixed the naming of them
> up. It's the 28-300/3.5-6.3 lens I was in reference to.


Understood about the mistake.

> Which is a very nice fixed lens. I *love* my 50/f1.4 lens. But I was
> looking for a nice zoom lens here.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]


OK, Sandman. Tamron can offer a couple of f/2.8 zoom lenses, but they're
DX format:

http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/

You could up the ISO, of course. Perhaps that means a new body?

Cheers,
David


Sandman 06-09-2011 11:36 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <isq9re$pcp$1@dont-email.me>,
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > Which is a very nice fixed lens. I *love* my 50/f1.4 lens. But I was
> > looking for a nice zoom lens here.

>
> OK, Sandman. Tamron can offer a couple of f/2.8 zoom lenses, but they're
> DX format:
>
> http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/
>
> You could up the ISO, of course. Perhaps that means a new body?


I use the Nikon D3s now, I hope I won't have to swap body for a while
:)

I rather not crop, so those lenses, while probably nice, would be off
the table.

Nikon has a nice 28-70 lens which I am considering. Sigma has a 24-70
as well.





--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman 06-09-2011 11:37 AM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <lrb1v6dp2ige9q7v0eegba7tdk5as5bmbn@4ax.com>,
Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK, Sandman. Tamron can offer a couple of f/2.8 zoom lenses, but they're
> > DX format:
> >
> > http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/
> >
> > You could up the ISO, of course. Perhaps that means a new body?

>
>
> Why a new body? Every FX DSLR Nikon has ever made, apart from the
> D3X, has exceptionally good performance at high ISOs. I'm sure even
> the D3X would have adequate performance. ;-)


I use the D3s, which just may be the highest performer in the world
when it comes to ISO. Although, I haven't kept up with Canons latest
models.


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman 06-09-2011 01:26 PM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <rug1v6l8do47hljhklp22227rhp6dk467n@4ax.com>,
Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Although, I haven't kept up with Canons latest models.

>
> Canon's full frame offerings are way, way behind Nikon's. This is the
> sector of the market where Nikon has gained most sales from Canon.


Yeah, I'll admit that I haven't really kept up with what Canon has on
this side. I actually thought the 1D MkIV was a full frame camera.
Since it arguably decent compared to the D3s when it comes to ISO, I
always thought it was a close cut, but if it's not full frame, that
changes things.

> It will be interesting to see the battle between the next generation
> of Nikon and Canon full frame DSLRs. Perhaps that will be Canon's
> opportunity to recover some market share.





--
Sandman[.net]

nospam 06-09-2011 01:36 PM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
In article <m5h1v69pggkku6101nlie3tf557rrn3gk6@4ax.com>, Bruce
<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, neither is quite as good as the AF Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8. When
> it was introduced in 1987 it was Nikon's sharpest zoom lens. Twenty
> four years later, it still is, and it works just as well on digital as
> on film.


however, it has a problem with the lens elements delaminating.

David Dyer-Bennet 06-09-2011 03:14 PM

Re: Good zoom-lens for Nikon?
 
On Jun 9, 1:34*am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
> have a larger aperture throughout.
>
> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
> course.
>
> What other (FX) lenses should I look at?


Your 18-200 is a DX lens, I believe. However, you explicitly ask
about FX lenses. I'm going to assume you proof-read your message and
that FX is really what you mean (and the 24-120/4 you mention is an
FX). Just in case I'm wrong, this way you know what I was smoking :-)

All zooms, especially FX zooms, are kinda slow. The Nikkor choice to
go faster in that range would be two lenses, the 24-70/2.8 and the
70-210/2.8. I have both, they're really excellent lenses, and out at
200mm (where it matters most) that does get you two stops faster.

The new 24-120 would certainly be cheaper than the pair; not as long
at the long end and a stop slower, though.

You can get primes a stop or two faster, at a few points. 24, 35, 50,
and 85 have good recent designs two stops faster yet (f/1.4) (still
DX).

Depending on the importance of fast lenses, your budget, and your
willingness to be a pack mule (the 24-70/2.8 is a lot bigger and
heavier than your 18-200; the 70-200/2.8 is bigger and heavier than
that), you can get about anything you need.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.