mikecanant wrote:
I tried it on D800 and found results to be less desirable than other choices.
Also, did not like the non-intuitive way it zooms (35mm is fully extended and 70mm is not extended) since I would have preferred to carry it in 35mm mode.
I know you are asking for comparison to 24-70 but my alternative choice for about same amount of money ($300), was a 24-85, 3.5-4.5 VR, which is sharper, lighter, longer range, and the VR makes up for the 2.8 advantage of the older lens. Build quality is not as good on newer lens but it is not a problem for me.
I tried it on D800 and found results to be less de... (
show quote)
Just curious, what was your focus point on this photo?
MT Shooter wrote:
The old Nikkor 35-70mm F2.8D lens was always well regarded. The only downside to it was the limited zoom range. It was, and still is, a very rugged, lightweight second choice to the newer, and more expensive, choices. I personally like it and still have a nice copy in the store, although it does not rent nearly as often as it used to. It was pushed into the closet by most Nikon users when they could afford to upgrade to the newer AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D lens, a VERY fine piece of glass.
So, rather than narrowing down my decision, the "alternatives" list is getting longer - choice is good!
What maximum price would you be willing to pay on both the 35-70 and the 28-70 in excellent condition (I don't know why I'd buy either in less condition - I'm going to have whichever lens I buy for a long time). The ultimate decision may just come down to the right price.
I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?
Gorky701 wrote:
I can't believe this conversation. Nikon 24-70 blows the other lens away. No comparison. If you want to less expensive for longer reach go 70-200 F4. Stay away from Tamron for quality sakes. Look at the reviews. Do your research.
I'm considering an older, used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?
PhotoPhred wrote:
Sounds like something Dick Chaney would have said. Just kidding.
No offense taken :thumbup:
glgracephoto wrote:
FX lenses work fine on a DX camera though. won't work well going the other way around, severe vignetting.
There are no FX ultra zooms, like Nikon's 28-300, that will do him any better than the 18-300 VR DX lens, either.
His D7100 is an excellent camera. If he wants super sharp resolution he is going to need t be willing to change lenses and then can own better glass
First, let me thank everyone who offered suggestions for my "one and done" lens dream. I've learned that it's really just a pipe dream, and am reconciled to carrying 2 lenses. And, like a couple of the other posters, I seem to be a confirmed zoom lens shooter - primes are great, but my shooting needs require the flexibility of "some" zoom. And since I shoot indoors a lot, I've decided to find a couple of f2.8 full format (FX) lenses so I can use them on my next camera upgrade, should that ever happen.
So, if I can change direction here a bit from my original post. I'm now thinking the Sigma (cost is a factor - sadly) 24-70mm f2.8 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 should do the job for me. Any additional thoughts on these 2 lenses, or the focal range coverage they will provide? I'm close now, and your replies will help me get to the final decision point. Again, thanks for all your help so far.
jaycoffman wrote:
Hi, I don't have much technical advice but I am in almost the same situation as you. Same age, same general background and similar needs in photography. Rather than family pictures I take motorcycle trips and do photo journals of my trip. I just upgraded to the D7100 and use a Tamron 16-300 lens. I really need just one lens on my trips as space is limited and I'm often shooting while on the bike (stooped, of course). I suggest giving your 18-300 more time and just experiment with what you can do. I've only shot about a thousand pictures with my camera/lens combination--both in raw and jpeg--and feel I am slowly getting better the more I learn about the camera and lens and the more pictures I take. I think this is a good combination that will fit my needs for quite a while.
Hi, I don't have much technical advice but I am i... (
show quote)
Jay: I'm getting used to the D7100 and am getting better and better photos (I pretty much used the D90 on P and never reset ISO or aperture or shutter speed). Now I "custom" set the variables for each series of shots. But I still think my biggest limitation is the slow glass of the 18-300mm Nikkor when shooting flashless indoors. The hunt goes on, and I'm actually starting to enjoy it - and learning a ton from the replies I've gotten here. Thanks all.
SharpShooter wrote:
Jerry, you could have simplified this a LOT, by just asking if a fast 50(or equivalent) is the BEST ideal lens made!! :lol: :lol:
SS
Yeah, I agree. But you don't know what you don't know until you know it.
:shock: :shock:
ddonlewis wrote:
Jerry,
As someone has already mentioned there is no perfect lens. There is not a lens that has a super zoom range, fast, and tack sharp. So I will give you several options?
1) You have the 50MM F1.8 so you could add the 35MM F1.8 and 85MM F1.8. All 3 of these lenses are very fast, tack sharp and relatively inexpensive. You can buy the 35MM new for $195 and the 85MM from Keh or Ebay for $300 used.
2) The 24-70MM F2.8 has been mentioned but $1,900 is ridiculous and it weighs a ton.
3) You could buy the old Nikon 35-70 F2.8 and 80-200MM F2.8 used for about $600. They are both fast and very sharp.
You'll have to decide. I have several prime lenses, but I personally am a zoom guy so I would go with option 3. This would also give you some lenses if you move to a full frame camera.
Jerry, br As someone has already mentioned t... (
show quote)
Thanks for the insight into options I hadn't considered yet. I'm also leaning towards your 3rd option. Is there anything more to the lens designations than the focal length I have to look for to make sure I'm getting auto zoom and FX (not DX) lenses? The listings on Ebay are a little confusing.
Mudshark wrote:
I've been a pro shooter in a wide variety of photographic fields since the early '60s. If I had to pick a lens for what I perceive you shoot it would be either the 35mm f1.4L USM or the 24-105L zoom. First choice would be the 35mm for it's super sharpness and speed. I've always thought 35mm was a kind of magic spot
as is 105mm. But the 35 overall wins out. You can do a great deal with that one lens and your legs
I prefer the prime lenses
but use both.
Does the "L" designation mean Canon lenses? I don't see a Nikkor equivalent of the 24-105mm. Also, I'm shooting a DX format camera - should I consider FX format lenses? I may never graduate up to a full frame DSLR.
btbg wrote:
The guy from the camera store is right. The only way to really upgrade image quality is to buy better lenses. the only way to buy better lenses is to pay for bigger, faster, and heavier glass. that means that you give up focal length for image quality.
Photography is an area where you can't have your cake and eat it too. I have a 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all Nikon f2.8, and a Sigma 150-500. If I could only take one with me it would be the 24-70, but no, cropping still won't give you the reach that you have with your current lens.
If you really want only one lens and want a lot of flexibility then what you have is about as good as you are going to get.
The guy from the camera store is right. The only w... (
show quote)
Not the answer I was hoping for, but I do now believe it's the only correct answer. And I am starting to be drawn to the shorter focal length/better image quality suggestions. Would you consider the 24-120mm f4 over the 24-70mm f2.8 an acceptable compromise?
juicesqueezer wrote:
Oh, and as far as changing lenses, I change daily between my wide angle, 70-200, 50 f1.2 and my 300 f2.8. When changing lenses, hold the camera down so as to not let debris get in. Never hold the camera pointed up with installing or removing one.
At some point in time, you will need to clean your sensor or have it done professionally. Don't be scared!
Good advice about holding the camera down when changing lenses - I hadn't thought of that. I agree I am babying my equipment too much.
:-(
juicesqueezer wrote:
Of course, any camera store is going to lead you in the right direction, just hang onto your wallet. I'm not sure why the 18-300 is not working for you. When you say soft, is that at the high end? 300mm? As far as grainy photos go, depends on what you are setting your ISO at, flash vs. non flash, etc. For low light indoors without flash, you will need a fast lens for one and a camera capable of using high ISO features. Posting a few photo's will help determine exactly what is happening. I had the 18-55 and it is one sharp lens for a kit lens. However, indoors with low light, no. You mentioned you have the 50 f1.8. I would certainly be using this indoors for low light situations. Try using that lens more, especially for portraits, since you have a DX camera. Hope this helps you some.
Of course, any camera store is going to lead you i... (
show quote)
Thanks for the reply, and, yes, I'm dissatisfied with it at the 200mm - 300mm range indoors where I often have to push the ISO up to 5000 or 6400 to get a fast enough shutter speed. I wondered if a faster, but shorter focal length lens would let me crop in close enough in post production and still have acceptable sharpness. I'm just an enthusiastic amateur who has trouble discerning the difference between great and good sharpness when I look at some of the photos you guys post. So, if I'm seeing "softness" I'm thinking it must be really soft to the eye of an expert.
This is my first post, but I've been getting the Ugly Hedgehog daily newsletter for about a month now and reading many of the posts - I'm very impressed with the breadth and depth of knowledge I'm finding.
By way of background, I've been taking family snap shots almost all my 67 years, but didn't get more involved until I retired 10 years ago and discovered digital photography. Since then, I've graduated(?) from my original Canon point and shoot to a Canon zoom dslr looking camera, to a Nikon D80, then the D90, and just last month to the D7100. I've owned the original 18-55 kit lens that came with my D80, then the 18-200 VR AF-S, and most recently to the 18-300 3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I also have a 50mm f1.8 D, but rarely shoot with it.
I shoot vacation photos, indoors and out - churches, landscapes, architecture, street scenes, and people - all without flash. I also take thousands of family photos, almost all candid - not posed, and then crop them mainly for portraits, which I hang all over my home office.
With each camera and lens upgrade, I've been striving for equipment which will give me sharper images in all light and action situations - kids sports and just playing - family interaction, etc. As I said, I prefer to get behind the camera, out of the way, and just photograph life as it passes my lens. I've gotten some great portraits of my grandchildren that way.
My dilemma is that I'm looking for one lens to use in all these situations. I'm a little paranoid when traveling about changing lenses on the fly (I find traveling enough of a hassle itself these days to not wanting to add reaching into my camera bag frequently to get the right lens for the right shot), or missing pictures I only get once chance to get. I thought the 18-300mm lens would be the ideal solution for this problem, but have found in the past year, that its low light capability in extended zoom gives me either grainy or soft pictures when I crop them.
I live near the Cameta brick and mortar store and was in there today discussing this. The salesman suggested I consider the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 or the Nikkor 24-120mm f4 as improvements over my current lens. I know I'd be giving up significant zoom with either of these, but am wondering if the sharpness of the lenses would allow me to crop my images enough to mimic the zoom of my 18-300mm and still get sharp images. Or, is there yet another one lens does it all solution - perhaps just a prime that would give me enough versatility. As much as I enjoy my photography, I know I'll never get deeper into it than serious amateur, and I'm not looking to own a whole lot of equipment - one camera at a time seems to be my limit.
It's almost a case of the more research I do, the more difficult it's becoming to sift through all the information and make a decision. I've come to know this past month that this forum is the place to get sound, practical advice. Thanks in advance for all your help.