expensive camera - cheap lens: I just got a d810 and thought I would see how it would do with one of the cheap lenses that I have read would lose a lot with this camera. So I put a...

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I just got a d810 and thought I would see how it would do with one of the cheap lenses that I have read would lose a lot with this camera. So I put a 24-120 vr 3.5-5.6g on it and took the picture, hand held. The shot was taken at 1/1000 sec, f/11, iso 800, @78mm, and I cropped it some. I did a little light adjustment, but very little. I got this lens with my d700 many years ago and have always thought it better than its reputation. I wouldn't use it inside for a wedding, but I think it works fine for outdoors in decent light. What do you think?

Highway 61 south of Lake City, MN looking toward Wi

(Download)

Didereaux Loc: Swamps of E TX

On full size it is not very impressive really. Pretty fuzzy. If you have another for outdoor shots I would use that.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Looks good to me! The most significant softness I see is in the extreme foreground, most likely depth of field effect.

I see no reason not to shoot more with the lens and learn it's optimal settings and uses.

I shoot Canon and have a couple inexpensive 28-135s that work quite well as backups, loaners or when I have to hike a ways and don't want to lug around much bigger and heavier 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Leon S wrote:

I just got a d810 and t... put a 24-120 vr 3.5-5.6g on it and took the picture, ... I got this lens with my d700 many years ago and have always thought it better than its reputation. ...

had an old 24-120, it was ok on film, soft on digital.
Got the latest 70=120, it was much improved but still soft on my D800.

mrd Loc: Eastern NC

There is no area in this image that is sharp, but everyone has their own acceptability of image IQ.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

What is the point of even testing the quality of an image produced by a clearly inferior lens on an 810? What results would one logically expect?

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Didereaux wrote:

On full size it is not very impressive really. Pretty fuzzy. If you have another for outdoor shots I would use that.

Not sure what you mean by full size? This post has been downsized to the lowest setting possible for saving after I adjusted the light in elements. Do you need the full 36mgs?

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

amfoto1 wrote:

Looks good to me! The most significant softness I see is in the extreme foreground, most likely depth of field effect.

I see no reason not to shoot more with the lens and learn it's optimal settings and uses.

I shoot Canon and have a couple inexpensive 28-135s that work quite well as backups, loaners or when I have to hike a ways and don't want to lug around much bigger and heavier 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

Personally I was interested in what others thought of the quality of the shot on a high rez camera using other than a 2.8 quality lens. Although my eyes are not what they used to be, I though the shot was not that bad. However when viewing the blackbird on my screen in the post, I clearly could not see any detail in the birds wing pattern. It did appear quite well on my personal file. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to comment..

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Kmgw9v wrote:

What is the point of even testing the quality of an image produced by a clearly inferior lens on an 810? What results would one logically expect?

That's the point of testing a lens on different cameras. Different camera's handle different lenses differently. I'm not sure how much inferior that lens is on a d810. Not everyone can afford the most expensive cameras or lenses. Not everyone needs the most expensive cameras or lenses. Not all situations call for either the most expensive cameras or lenses. Some things just have to be tested out and then evaluated to determine to what degree results are attained and achieved. Thanks you for your comments. LEon

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

oldtigger wrote:

had an old 24-120, it was ok on film, soft on digital.
Got the latest 70=120, it was much improved but still soft on my D800.

Thanks OT. I had some curiosity about the newest f4 version of the 24-120. With my post I had in the back of my mind if that lens (f4) was worth the money to me to buy it. I already shoot high quality lens such as the 28-70 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8, but appreciate the difference in weight of the 24-120 and its reach when out on a walk. I'll see what others think of the shot. Maybe I should have posted it on full rez and used a tripod for the shot, but shooting at 1/1000 sec probably negated the need of the tripod. Thanks again for taking the time to comment. Leon.

Wilsondl3

Kmgw9v wrote:

What is the point of even testing the quality of an image produced by a clearly inferior lens on an 810? What results would one logically expect?

For some folks that are not old grouches it's fun to see what you an get out of cheaper or even do it yourself stuff. Seem you need to get a life when you have a negative comment at least half the time. - Dave

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

When you ask peoples' opinions, sometimes you don't get the answer you're looking for. That doesn't make people "grouches". If I had a lens that gave that kind of results I'd use it for a paper weight. You asked. I answered