Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 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 19933 times)
Slough
Guest
« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2009, 04:42:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
I value an experienced photog's subjective test 100 times more than any such 'objective' test.

Me too. People tend to overvalue 'objective' over 'subjective' without understanding the limitations of the former.
Logged
Radiohead
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 23, 2009, 05:08:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I spent a couple of years shooting 5D's with the EF 24-70 as my workhorse, and the last year shooting D3's with the Nikkor 24-70 in its place.

There's no doubt whatsoever to me that the Nikkor is a superior lens. Sharper wide-open, it doesn't randomly back-focus when it feels like it (a trawl through any wedding forum will see this is the curse of the EF when shooting groups), less CA (almost none), to my eyes a smoother OOF transition, better contrast at f4 and below and wonderful tonality. I believe it to be every inch a worthy companion to the 14-24mm, and probably the finest mid-range zoom in any mount today. Even now it still stuns me with its all-round ability.

Run, don't walk, to the nearest dealer. It's THE de facto mid-range for FX bodies for those wanting the best.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8911


« Reply #82 on: January 23, 2009, 06:29:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
I suspect what you really mean is that on a high pixel count full frame camera, such as the D3x, edge performance is a very real concern. As to whether or not that is true for most Nikon lenses, I will leave it to people with experience to provide an informative answer. Neither of us have the experience to comment.

C'mon now, Slough. You are either being very naive or very disingenuous. Ever since the first full frame DSLR became available, the Canon 1Ds, people have frequently claimed that their lenses needed upgrading. Lenses which seemed satisfactory at the edges and in the corners on their earlier cropped format cameras, the D30 or D60, often appeared disturbingly soft in the corners on the 1Ds with a mere 11mp.

Just as one of the advantages of the APS-C format is better edge and corner performance with lenses that have been designed for full frame 35mm, one of the disadvantages of the full frame DSLR is the opposite, ie., relatively poor corner performance with the same lenses, and I do have the experience to comment even if you don't, because I've been using a full frame DSLR for the past 3 1/2 years (the 5D) and a number of cropped format DSLRs for the past 5 years.

Of course, not all lenses are equally bad in the corners and no lens is equally bad at all apertures or all focal lengths if it's a zoom. Stopping down often fixes the problem. The problem is certainly worse with wide angle lenses, which is why I went to the expense of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. These are focal lengths I use a lot and the 14-24/2.8 seems to be one of the few Nikkor lenses that is definitely better than any Canon equivalent, with regards to edge and corner performance. In fact, I'm so impressed with this lens I went to the additional expense of getting a D700 body for it. Using the lens with an adapter on my 5D was too restrictive. No autofocussing; guesswork regarding choice of aperture; a need to remove the battery after shooting otherwise it would go flat within a few days; an inability to autobracket exposure in Aperture priority mode, and probably a few other disadvantages I didn't discover.

The reason I'm interested in this thread is because the question posed by the OP interests me. I don't like having to always carry two cameras with me when out shooting, and I would therefore like a Nikkor lens which is the equivalent of the very useful and good quality Canon 24-105/F4 IS. There doesn't appear to be one. The closest is the Nikkor AF-S 24-120/F3.5-5.6 VR.

This is another Nikkor lens for which the Photozone test results almost caused me to fall off my chair. Edge performance at 24mm and full aperture is really bad, even on the D200. Knowing this, one could avoid using 24mm at full aperture, but it seems one would have to avoid using full aperture at other focal lengths also, if one were fussy about edge performance. Even at 70mm, maximum aperture is F5.3, which is virtually F5.6, and edge performance seems greatly lacking. At 120mm and F5.6, edge performance seem better, but the lens in general seems a bit soft at this FL. However, performance at 35mm seems quite respectable.

It looks as though the D700 will be a one-lens camera for me until Nikon come out with some improved lenses of the type that interest me. The 24-70/2.8 is a fine lens, but I happen to very much appreciate image stabilisation with my lenses. The 14-24 doesn't have image stabilisation, but also doesn't need it as much as the longer focal lengths.


Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8911


« Reply #83 on: January 23, 2009, 07:12:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Radiohead
I spent a couple of years shooting 5D's with the EF 24-70 as my workhorse, and the last year shooting D3's with the Nikkor 24-70 in its place.

There's no doubt whatsoever to me that the Nikkor is a superior lens. Sharper wide-open, it doesn't randomly back-focus when it feels like it (a trawl through any wedding forum will see this is the curse of the EF when shooting groups), less CA (almost none), to my eyes a smoother OOF transition, better contrast at f4 and below and wonderful tonality. I believe it to be every inch a worthy companion to the 14-24mm, and probably the finest mid-range zoom in any mount today. Even now it still stuns me with its all-round ability.

Run, don't walk, to the nearest dealer. It's THE de facto mid-range for FX bodies for those wanting the best.

No matter how sharp the lens is, an adequate shutter speed or a tripod is always needed to realize that extra performance. If you usually use a tripod, then the lack of VR or IS is not such an issue.

I never considered getting the Canon 24-70 for this reason, because it lacks IS. Most of my shooting is done without tripod, although I always carry a lightweight tripod on shooting expeditions.

Subjective reviews without reference to objective testing can be very misleading, no matter how experienced the photographer. This is partly because lens quality variation amongst the same model is a fact of life. Combine actual lens quality variation with the unavoidable variation in subjective assessment, and the results may not be reliable. Ultimately, you have to test your lenses for yourself, which is what I always do. I tested the Nikkor 14-24 thoroughly on my 5D before deciding to buy a D700 body.

However, sensor quality variation does not seem to be such an issue, although it does exist. No two 'anything' can be literally identical. It may well be the case that on average the Nikkor 24-70 is a better lens than the Canon 24-70. But it will almost certainly be the case that the best copy a that Canon 24-70 design will be noticeably better than the worst copy of the Nikkor 24-70.

It's interesting that recent 'real world' comparisons between the D3X and 5D2 (and A900) seem to be confirming the relative performance of those cameras' sensors as described in graph format at DXOmark.

When lens reviewers make objective tests of lenses, using imatest for example, they should be aware of the general subjective impressions that might be available as well as other objective test reports of that lens. If the copy of the lens they are testing seems suspiciously a-typical, they should test another copy from a different batch.

Edit: From your post, it sound to me that your dissatisfaction with the Canon 24-70 could have been largely due to a misfocussing calibration. This is a problem which is not uncommon, and it's why recent models of Canon DSLR have an autofocussing micro-adjustment feature.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 07:23:36 PM by Ray » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #84 on: January 24, 2009, 04:06:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
C'mon now, Slough. You are either being very naive or very disingenuous. Ever since the first full frame DSLR became available, the Canon 1Ds, people have frequently claimed that their lenses needed upgrading. Lenses which seemed satisfactory at the edges and in the corners on their earlier cropped format cameras, the D30 or D60, often appeared disturbingly soft in the corners on the 1Ds with a mere 11mp.

Just as one of the advantages of the APS-C format is better edge and corner performance with lenses that have been designed for full frame 35mm, one of the disadvantages of the full frame DSLR is the opposite, ie., relatively poor corner performance with the same lenses, and I do have the experience to comment even if you don't, because I've been using a full frame DSLR for the past 3 1/2 years (the 5D) and a number of cropped format DSLRs for the past 5 years.

Of course, not all lenses are equally bad in the corners and no lens is equally bad at all apertures or all focal lengths if it's a zoom. Stopping down often fixes the problem. The problem is certainly worse with wide angle lenses, which is why I went to the expense of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. These are focal lengths I use a lot and the 14-24/2.8 seems to be one of the few Nikkor lenses that is definitely better than any Canon equivalent, with regards to edge and corner performance. In fact, I'm so impressed with this lens I went to the additional expense of getting a D700 body for it. Using the lens with an adapter on my 5D was too restrictive. No autofocussing; guesswork regarding choice of aperture; a need to remove the battery after shooting otherwise it would go flat within a few days; an inability to autobracket exposure in Aperture priority mode, and probably a few other disadvantages I didn't discover.

The reason I'm interested in this thread is because the question posed by the OP interests me. I don't like having to always carry two cameras with me when out shooting, and I would therefore like a Nikkor lens which is the equivalent of the very useful and good quality Canon 24-105/F4 IS. There doesn't appear to be one. The closest is the Nikkor AF-S 24-120/F3.5-5.6 VR.

This is another Nikkor lens for which the Photozone test results almost caused me to fall off my chair. Edge performance at 24mm and full aperture is really bad, even on the D200. Knowing this, one could avoid using 24mm at full aperture, but it seems one would have to avoid using full aperture at other focal lengths also, if one were fussy about edge performance. Even at 70mm, maximum aperture is F5.3, which is virtually F5.6, and edge performance seems greatly lacking. At 120mm and F5.6, edge performance seem better, but the lens in general seems a bit soft at this FL. However, performance at 35mm seems quite respectable.

It looks as though the D700 will be a one-lens camera for me until Nikon come out with some improved lenses of the type that interest me. The 24-70/2.8 is a fine lens, but I happen to very much appreciate image stabilisation with my lenses. The 14-24 doesn't have image stabilisation, but also doesn't need it as much as the longer focal lengths.

"You are either being very naive or very disingenuous"

Neither. I was simply trying to find out the basis for your statement that any Nikon lens has issues on full frame.

And I think, though I might be mistaken, that the complaints from Canon users generally concern wide angle lenses. Since I am not a Canon users, I cannot say with any certainty.

The reason I was struck by your statement is that I am simply not aware of Nikon users complaining that most/all Nikon lenses have weak corners when used on the D700 or D3. As I said, there are issues with some wide angle lenses, but lenses such as the 17-35mm F2.8 zoom are superb when stopped down a few stops. There are some complaints about the 70-200 F2.8 AFS zoom at the long end even when stopped down, but only at the far corners. I think it helps to be precise rather than make sweeping statements which turn out to apply to a few lenses.  

As I have indicated, the OP can find information on Rorslett's site, and on the Nikon Gear forum, where there are several posters who own and use a D3x which is a more severe test of lenses.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 04:56:01 AM by Slough » Logged
inissila
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2009, 12:46:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
All lenses tend to suffer from weak corners.

Why then did you say "Nikkor" if that was your intention? An intent to be deliberately provocative, no doubt.

There are many lenses which deliver excellent corner performance. Most high quality lenses show very good corner performance when stopped down a bit. Most wide angles do not render sharp corners wide open, but there are some that do, i.e. 35/2 ZF.

As noted, tele primes, PC-E Nikkors, most macro lenses have excellent corner performance. The 24-70 at most of its FL range has very good evenness of sharpness across the image area.

Back to the original question, the 24-70 is excellent and would be the first choice of a FX Nikon user for a standard zoom at least until newer mid-aperture designs are brought to the market. It doesn't have VR which is probably why it is so good optically.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 12:47:06 PM by inissila » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8911


« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2009, 06:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: inissila
Why then did you say "Nikkor" if that was your intention? An intent to be deliberately provocative, no doubt.
 

Yes. Just checking on who's a Nikon fanboy.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #87 on: January 26, 2009, 05:19:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Yes. Just checking on who's a Nikon fanboy.

There's no need for gratuitous offensiveness. Some of us use only one system, so cannot comment with any authority on other systems.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8911


« Reply #88 on: January 27, 2009, 06:32:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
There's no need for gratuitous offensiveness. Some of us use only one system, so cannot comment with any authority on other systems.

Reknaw!
Logged
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2009, 11:41:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Reknaw!

hgis/

New low, Ray.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 12:04:07 PM by gss » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2009, 12:36:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Reknaw!

That does not deserve a response.

Fortunately someone has already summed you up quite well:

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).

Logged
Radiohead
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 02, 2009, 04:24:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
No matter how sharp the lens is, an adequate shutter speed or a tripod is always needed to realize that extra performance. If you usually use a tripod, then the lack of VR or IS is not such an issue.

I'm a documentary wedding photographer and a tripod doesn't sit well with that. In fact, I can say I've never used one during any wedding.

With the superb high ISO performance of the D3 body I find shutter speed issues far less frequent, and I'll always have a second body on me with an f1.4 lens mounted. Problem solved.

It may well have been a calibration issue - but the fact that it was so damn inconsistent suggested otherwise to me. It's the single biggest complaint I hear from other wedding photographers about the EF 24-70mm. Either we're all doing something wrong, which I doubt, or the lenses are all in need of calibration, which doesn't paint a pretty picture for Canon's QC, or the lens is simply prone to this behaviour. Knowing the quality of the photographers I've discussed this with I think it's the latter. We are all also in agreement that the Nikkor is a better lens. It's that simple.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8911


« Reply #92 on: February 02, 2009, 08:08:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Radiohead
We are all also in agreement that the Nikkor is a better lens. It's that simple.


And that is very useful information to have. If I'd always wanted a Canon 24-70mm lens but had never got around to getting one, then I would take this opportunity to buy the Nikkor equivalent for my D700. However, I'm not a wedding photographer and I do appreciate image stabilisation. I often like to have an extensive DoF in my shots although I sometimes shoot in poor lighting where I'm prepared to sacrifice DoF, and sometimes I might simply want a shallow DoF in good light, in which case a lack of VR is not a problem.

After a number of years of photography in all sorts of situations, one gets an idea of the sort of lens one uses most often. For me, they are mostly lenses with image stabilisation, or very wide angle lenses where lack of image satabilisation is less of a concern.

I can find no good reason for my style of photography to buy lenses without image stabilisation, unless I have to. In the case of the Nikkor 14-24 purchase, there was no other option. If Sony had produced a wide-angle zoom on a par with the Nikkor, I would probably have bought an A900 instead of the D700.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372


« Reply #93 on: February 03, 2009, 01:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a 24-70. Unbelievably sharp, nice OOF rendering, etc.. great lens. I understand why the 14-24 generates so much interest, a 24-70 is for many a range not very interesting, I think this is one of  the reasons why this lens appears to be underrated or underestimated. This lens performs better than many primes I have owned or own in this range. Anyway, what I like more about it, its handling is very nice, a no-effort/excellent results lens. I am very happy with it.

Not sure why Nikon leaves out VR in the 'shorter' range, anything I might mention is pure speculation. I just hope leaving out VR has a pretty good reason because I would have liked to have it even if I am fine without it.

People are welcome to raw files if they want to.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 01:40:10 PM by Dustbak » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad