Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Good zoom-lens for Nikon?

Reply
Thread Tools

Good zoom-lens for Nikon?

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On 6/9/2011 2:34 AM, Sandman 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?
>


What type of shooting do you do?
What is your budget.
All of my lenses are Nikon.
I use the 70-200, sometimes with the 1.7 teleconverter for street,
wildlife and zoos. The 80-400 to landscape and sometimes prefocused for
birds.
The 18-200, which is soft, as a walk around in hot weather. (Yes, I know
that is a DX lens, but Nikon FF will take it. Indeed the results are at
least as good as on a good DX camera.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> 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.


If the existing body doesn't have good enough high-ISO performance, a new
body might be one solution, in a general case. Not in this particular
case, though, as Sandman has the excellent Nikon D3s.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Not in *any* case, because 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.
>
> (Sorry to repeat it, but it is clear from your reply that you didn't
> bother to read it the first time).


You seem to have missed my point. You /can/ get an improvement in
high-ISO performance by upgrading from an older to a newer camera, whether
it be DX or FX. Or even by changing from Canon to Nikon (or vice versa).
Changes over the last decade have been not insignificant.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
M-M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

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



You do realize that high magnification in low light is prohibitively
expensive if not impossible to achieve.

You can't have both. Look at those monster lenses you see at baseball
games. And there the light is good!

You can only have a good zoom at a decent price if you have a lot of
light.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
M-M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

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

>
> You do realize that high magnification in low light is prohibitively
> expensive if not impossible to achieve.
>
> You can't have both. Look at those monster lenses you see at baseball
> games. And there the light is good!
>
> You can only have a good zoom at a decent price if you have a lot of
> light.


Whoever mentioned decent price?

I was looking for suggestions in a specific range. Not a 18-900/1.4
lens for $100

I got some really good suggestions too!



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Yeah, I misnamed it. I have it in DX as well. I meant the Tamron
28-300. Sorry

> 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


Yeah, I want FX, I mistyped. My bad

> 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.


I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean the Nikon 70-200/2.8 thermos
lens? I have that one as well, or rather, the Tamron version. Yes,
it's not *as* great, but the Nikon was unavailable when I was buying.

Anyway, the 24-70/2.8 was suggested by someone else as well, and it
does indeed look like a real contender in my lineup here. Tamron has a
28-75/2.8 lens but the Nikon is rated higher.

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


Ecxactly, and between the Tamron 28-75 and the Nikon 24-70, the Nikon
would probably be the better choice.

> 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).


My 50/1.4 is FX, though.

> 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.


I have a huge camera bag. The 24-70 is 83mm long vs. my current
Tamron's 78mm. It's a bit wider though, and almost twice as heavy.

Still, for all I have seen now, it may be my best choice.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 1:34*am, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Oh, and thank you for all your suggestions and your time. Very
helpful!


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
In article <4df0e3ca$0$12510$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>,
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
> >

>
> What type of shooting do you do?


This would be for more or less casual shooting, where I'd normally use
the above Tamron. I use fixed lenses for portrait photography. This is
mainly just for taking nice pictures of the kids when we're out and
about.

> What is your budget.


Budget... isn't super important. Just not crazy expensive

> All of my lenses are Nikon.
> I use the 70-200, sometimes with the 1.7 teleconverter for street,
> wildlife and zoos.


Yes, I love the 70-200, use it for weddings and events mostly.

> The 80-400 to landscape and sometimes prefocused for birds.
> The 18-200, which is soft, as a walk around in hot weather. (Yes, I know
> that is a DX lens, but Nikon FF will take it. Indeed the results are at
> least as good as on a good DX camera.


18-200 would be nice, but I would prefer a FX lens...

Thanks!


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
Put simply, Bruce, more recent Nikon cameras have better noise performance
than earlier Nikon models, and I'm talking generally, not full-frame. The
same is probably true of other manufacturer's ranges as well. It would
not surprise me to see an even better performing Nikon full-frame camera
in due course.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2011
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
>
> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.


Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already been
reached?

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
good algorithms come with practice and reading good code/books? vlsidesign C Programming 26 01-02-2007 09:50 AM
Good slide scanning service vs. good slide scanner for Do-It-Yourself? LAshooter Digital Photography 0 06-25-2005 07:14 AM
Signs are good, but WAN no good =?Utf-8?B?bmV0bnV0?= Wireless Networking 2 08-21-2004 12:41 PM
JLO situation+ why fastglass is good+DSLR is good Hugo Drax Digital Photography 0 01-17-2004 11:41 PM
Not even a newbee. Good at school course. please advise good start sikka noel C++ 8 08-05-2003 06:43 AM



Advertisments