Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is there a good quality 28 - 70 mm (or more) zoom lens for Nikon full-frame DSLRs?  (Read 19390 times)
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2009, 05:31:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
You seem to be so sensitive and so vulnerable, you've blown my comments out of all proprtion. As I've already mentioned, a bit of softness in the corners, especially at the short end is to be expected. The Canon 24-70 might be no different. The major weakness for me is that the lens does not have VR. I will also add that, after looking at Bjorn's site, I see soft corners as a weakness in quite a few Nikkor lenses. There are a number of lenses that get excellent results on the DX format but are a bit lacking on full frame, just are there are Canon lenses in the same category.

You should understand, I'm in the situation where I would not be interested in any Nikkor lens unless it was substantially better than the Canon full frame equivalent, which the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 clearly is. Even though the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 might be the optical equal of the Canon 24-70/2.8, it needs to be better for me to consider it. I'm not in the process of swapping Nikkor lenses for Canon lenses. I buy Nikkor lenses only because they are clearly better in some respect than the Canon equivalent.


Ray I know what I'm reading. I might not be a native English speaker but I think I have a good enough  grasp of yourlanguage not to blow your comments out of all proportion. I'm also not known to take comments out of context, at least nobody else has accused me of doing that, something that cannot be said about you. I stand by my comments, so please do the proper thing and either stand by yours or correct what you have said.

Nobody asked in this thread about your particular needs. I wouldn't give a dime about the situation you're in regarding your particular lens selection criteria. The OP asked about opinions on midrange lenses, you made misleading and out of place comments.
Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2009, 05:31:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
NashvillMike posted ONE experience. Your statement was that Nikon lenses in general had an issue with edge sharpness. So what was your source?

Browsing on the internet. Nikon have had years of producing lenses for the DX format. Even on the Nikon website in Australia, there's a section for DX lenses but no section for FX lenses. Whenever one looks at a lens specification, there's some confusion as to whether the lens is really an FX lens. When I look at the specifications of the new Nikkor 50/1.4, I see an image circle of 35mm mentioned. What's going on here? The image circle for full frame is 44mm. I'll see if I can find the reference and post it as an edit.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2009, 05:37:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Browsing on the internet. Nikon have had years of producing lenses for the DX format. Even on the Nikon website in Australia, there's a section for DX lenses but no section for FX lenses. Whenever one looks at a lens specification, there's some confusion as to whether the lens is really an FX lens. When I look at the specifications of the new Nikkor 50/1.4, I see an image circle of 35mm mentioned. What's going on here? The image circle for full frame is 44mm. I'll see if I can find the reference and post it as an edit.

Ray, in all honesty, what have you been smoking lately? Sounds like fun, could you spare a bit?

(PS. For anyone not familiar with Nikon lens terminology. Any lens not explicitly marked as DX, is made to cover the full 24x36, 35mm, 135 or FX format. Canon use EF-S to designate their reduced format lenses, which BTW cannot be mounted to their non APS-C cameras,  and Sigma use DC. There, it is quite simple really.)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 05:54:27 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2009, 05:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Ray, in all honesty, what have you been smoking lately? Sounds like fun, could you spare a bit?

No. Just reading reports on the internet, which is all I have to go by. Here's a comment from your revered Bjorn Rorslett regarding the Nikkor 70-200/2.8.

Quote
On the D3, however, issues occur with this lens. A certain amount of vignetting when the lens is set wide open is both to be expected and indeed readily visible. But stopping down one or two clicks resolves that issue nicely. The centre sharpness is excellent even on the D3, but the tendency for the corners lacking critical sharpness when the lens is focused towards infinity at its longer end is unexpected and troublesome. For landscapes at 200 mm, you need to stop down way too far to get the corners just barely acceptable, even to f/22 in some cases. I think the covering power of this slim design simply is not adequate for a good performance across the entire FX frame, at least towards the 200 mm setting.

I simply don't have the resources to test every lens for myself.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2009, 06:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
No. Just reading reports on the internet, which is all I have to go by. Here's a comment from your revered Bjorn Rorslett regarding the Nikkor 70-200/2.8.



I simply don't have the resources to test every lens for myself.


So try to control your urge to comment on all topics regardless if you have something useful to convey or not.

The 70-200's issue is well known and blown out of proportion IMO. I thought this thread was about midrange zooms?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 06:09:18 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2009, 06:20:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
So try to control your urge to comment on all topics regardless if you have something useful to convey or not.

The 70-200's issue is well known and blown out of proportion IMO. I thought this thread was about midrange zooms?

Hey! I'm soon going to be an owner of a Nikon D700. I've got only one lens and it looks as though it will stay like that. I can't find another lens that interests me. The Nikkor 24-70 seems a fine lens, just as the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 is a fine lens which I already own. But the Nikkor lacks VR and the Canon has IS. I can't find a compelling reason to get the Nikkor 24-70/2.8, but I would not argue that it's not a fine lens even though it might not be perfect in the corners.  
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2009, 06:23:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Hey! I'm soon going to be an owner of a Nikon D700. I've got only one lens and it looks as though it will stay like that. I can't find another lens that interests me. The Nikkor 24-70 seems a fine lens, just as the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 is a fine lens which I already own. But the Nikkor lacks VR and the Canon has IS. I can't find a compelling reason to get the Nikkor 24-70/2.8, but I would not argue that it's not a fine lens even though it might not be perfect in the corners.  

Who cares?
Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2009, 06:28:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Who cares?

I care! I'm careful what I spend my money on. I need to know in what way my image quality and options will be improved when I buy a new lens. Don't most people? You seem unduly sensitive. Are you a Nikon fanboy?
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2009, 06:33:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I care! I'm careful what I spend my money on. I need to know in what way my image quality and options will be improved when I buy a new lens. Don't most people? You seem unduly sensitive. Are you a Nikon fanboy?

I'm someone who doesn't like your tendency to monopolize threads, express opinions on anything regardless if you know what you're talking about or not and trying to always have the last word (make the last post). So I'll let you have that last one. You can provide your reply and I promise I'm not going to reply back. There, happy now?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 06:48:00 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2009, 06:58:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
I'm someone who doesn't like your tendency to monopolize threads, express opinions on anything regardless if you know what you're talking about or not and trying to always have the last word (make the last post). So I'll let you have that last one. You can provide your reply and I promise I'm not going to reply back. There, happy now?

Yes. Happy to refute the nonsense of your argument in the interest of clear thinking. Nobody has a monopoly on any thread on this forum. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion, but I would hope if you disagree with an opinion you would provide salient facts or references to salient facts so we can all benefit and learn. Ad hominen attacks serve no purpose and benefit no-one.
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2009, 08:33:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Was it possible that anyone was ever able to shoot a sharp photograph before lens stabilization technology?  Yes, I think it was.  But as soon as some new technology becomes widely available does everything that came before become suddenly obsolete?  No it does not.  I love VR technology, particularly on long lenses, but it is not a prerequisite for every single lens purchase.  Using the best technique is better insurance of a quality image than VR.  Would I like to have VR on every lens?  Maybe, but maybe not.  Weight is a factor for sure, but I don't see the need for it in, for example, a lens that might be used primarily as a tripod mounted landscape lens.

My post count is probably lower than my registered time on the forum might indicate.  That is largely because I like to post when I have something from experience to contribute.  Otherwise I read and ponder the experiences of others who have valuable information to share.  At times I think there are a number of people who simply enjoy jumping into the thick of it without any valuable information just for the recreational opportunity.
Logged

NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2009, 08:50:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.

Actually, the 24-70's only weakness (in the corners) is specifically at 24mm. At, say, 35mm, it's quite sharp across the frame.
Don't take my comment at 24mm to be indicative of the lenses performance across the range. For quite a while I owned two copies of the lens and both had similar issues, indicating, I think, some curvature of field issues that rear their head at 24mm in the corners. Lenses are often tradeoffs - hard to find a perfect lens. Given the class leading performance of the lens in the 30-60mm range, I will gladly suffer a less than stellar 24mm corner performance, but I realize not everyone may make the same choice.

-m
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 09:03:07 AM by NashvilleMike » Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2009, 08:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
. . . excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.

A DX lens will not cover the FX area.  If you mount a DX lens on a Nikon FX body, the body will switch to a DX mode and carve a DX sized image out of the middle of the sensor.  If you were to mount a DX lens on a Nikon film body, you will see the image circle.  It is not a matter of being weak in the corners at all.  It is a matter of the DX lenses being designed for a DX image.
Logged

Slough
Guest
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2009, 09:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
You seem to be so sensitive and so vulnerable, you've blown my comments out of all proprtion. As I've already mentioned, a bit of softness in the corners, especially at the short end is to be expected.

Ray: He was commenting on the following statement that you made and which you have not corroborated:

Quote from: Ray
This seems to be a common problem with any modern Nikkor lens, weak in the corners on FX, excluding those leses that are designated DX, which one expects to be weak in the corners on FX.

(The bold emphasis on 'any' is mine.)

I think your statement is nonsense. Of course I might be mistaken, and I am open to counter arguments.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2009, 09:20:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Colorado David
A DX lens will not cover the FX area.  If you mount a DX lens on a Nikon FX body, the body will switch to a DX mode and carve a DX sized image out of the middle of the sensor.  If you were to mount a DX lens on a Nikon film body, you will see the image circle.  It is not a matter of being weak in the corners at all.  It is a matter of the DX lenses being designed for a DX image.


Just for the sake of accuracy, the following things apply:

1. In all Nikon FX dSLRs you can choose to have the camera NOT switch automatically to the DX crop when a DX lens is mounted.

2. Not all 3rd party 'DX' format lenses trigger the automatic crop mechanism.

3. Some Nikon DX lenses (namely the 12-24 and the 17-55) can cover the FX frame at the longer fl positions (e.g. For the 12-24 this happens from about 17-18mm). The performance at the edges / corners is nothing to write home about but can be acceptable stopped down for many applications. The same may apply to some of the 3rd party lenses (e.g. The Tokina 10-17 'fisheye' zoom covers the FX frame from 14-15 upwards, though I don't like its performance even in the center).
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 09:22:43 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2009, 09:26:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for clarifying that.  I was speaking specifically of the Nikon DX lenses and my point is still valid; the DX lenses are designed for a DX image and argueing that they would be soft at the corners on an FX body is rubbish and a simple attempt to paint with as broad a brush as possible that the Nikon lenses are not up to the task.
Logged

NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2009, 09:30:13 AM »
ReplyReply

So, to come back on topic and to answer the OP's question, which I remind was 'Is there a good quality 28 - 70 mm (or more) zoom lens for Nikon full-frame DSLRs? ' the answer is an emphatic YES there is, it is called the Nikkor AF-S 24-70 2.8G which is to all accounts an excellent quality lens. The old 28-70 is also a very good quality lens and can be found used priced attractively (in comparison to the 24-70).

There.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 09:33:38 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2009, 09:31:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Colorado David
Thanks for clarifying that.  I was speaking specifically of the Nikon DX lenses and my point is still valid; the DX lenses are designed for a DX image and argueing that they would be soft at the corners on an FX body is rubbish and a simple attempt to paint with as broad a brush as possible that the Nikon lenses are not up to the task.

I just meant my post as a clarification for accuracy's sake. I agree with the crux of what you're saying.
Logged

Nikos
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2009, 10:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
- The Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 on the D700 got the best absolute mark,
- Followed closely by the Canon 24-70 f2.8
- The Sony Zeiss on the A900 was a rather distant third. Their comment was that it was excellent on the A700, but clearly weaker than both Nikon and Canon offerings in the corners when used on the A900.

Bernard, Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that unlike the stellar performance that the 14-24 and 24-70 Nikkors demonstrated on lower res FF bodies like the D700/D3, the edge performance on the D3X is not as good.  The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.

The following is a quote:

==========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========

Based on my prior experience with the Canon 24-70 and current experience with the Zeiss 24-70, I would state that they definitely got a damaged Zeiss for testing on the A900, if the Zeiss (benchtested during its development, specifically on a high resolution FF body), came in a "distant third" to these older Canikon lenses.    
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 10:45:13 AM by aaykay » Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2009, 12:41:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Bernard, Thom Hogan in his review of the D3X mentions that unlike the stellar performance that the 14-24 and 24-70 Nikkors demonstrated on lower res FF bodies like the D700/D3, the edge performance on the D3X is not as good.  The high resolution of the D3X, seemingly is starting to expose the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms.

The following is a quote:

==========
Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=========

Based on my prior experience with the Canon 24-70 and current experience with the Zeiss 24-70, I would state that they definitely got a damaged Zeiss for testing on the A900, if the Zeiss (benchtested during its development, specifically on a high resolution FF body), came in a "distant third" to these older Canikon lenses.    


Stating that the D3x reveals that the lenses are 'not perfect' (show me a lens that is) doesn't mean that they are not excellent lenses. Everything has to be judged realistically against what else is available at any one time. I'm not saying you're saying otherwise, but I'm sure the phrase 'the weaknesses of these newer Nikkor zooms' can easily be taken out of context by those that tend to take statements out of context. I would hate to have to bear another round of raysense in this thread.
Logged

Nikos
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad