Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Advice on a new lens
Jun 21, 2020 08:38:40 #
I have a Nikon D7200 with a Tamron 18-400 zoom that I use all the time. I think it's very sharp but keep hearing that it's just a good "walk-around" lens. I'm considering a Tamron, Nikon, or Sigma 24-70 as a "sharper" lens, and yes, I know they're built for FX format cameras.
The question is, will I get a significantly sharper result with one of these lenses? In other words, will I be able to see a difference in a 16x20 print between the 18-400 and one of the 24-70 lenses?
Thanks
The question is, will I get a significantly sharper result with one of these lenses? In other words, will I be able to see a difference in a 16x20 print between the 18-400 and one of the 24-70 lenses?
Thanks
Jun 21, 2020 08:56:59 #
Jun 21, 2020 09:00:51 #
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Jun 21, 2020 09:17:30 #
It's your money. It's your decision. If you let the UHH community spend your money, nothing you have will ever be good enough to their standards. A top-rated 24-70 will be noticeably sharper. They'd better be better, if selling for $1500+. But, what are you going to do when you are in a situation you need a lens covering 80mm to 400mm?
If you think the lens is sharp, it's sharp. If you compare your results from roughly the same distance and subject and can't see a difference, it's sharp. Look for examples of the lens, preferably from the same / similar camera. Here's a public group: https://flic.kr/g/A5JG3 (check the EXIF data, if available for the individual images). If you see work better than your results, consider their shooting and / or processing technique, while confirming they do have EXIF data showing the same lens.
If you think the lens is sharp, it's sharp. If you compare your results from roughly the same distance and subject and can't see a difference, it's sharp. Look for examples of the lens, preferably from the same / similar camera. Here's a public group: https://flic.kr/g/A5JG3 (check the EXIF data, if available for the individual images). If you see work better than your results, consider their shooting and / or processing technique, while confirming they do have EXIF data showing the same lens.
Jun 21, 2020 09:21:46 #
No, there's very little difference. LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. I looked at their image resolution testing of those lenses. There's very little difference in image resolution. These are the charts for center resolution. They also have charts for lens edge resolution for cropped sensor and full frame.
Tamron 18-400 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD lens center resolution
(Download)
Tamron SP 24-70 mm f/2.8 VC USD G2 lens center resolution
(Download)
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8E ED VR lens center resolution
(Download)
Jun 21, 2020 09:32:37 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's your money. It's your decision. If you let th... (show quote)
Also, it's only better or worse by comparison.
Whomever receives "a" print from either will not know if there was a difference, or how much.
It will only matter to the photographer.
Jun 21, 2020 11:00:35 #
Jim1938 wrote:
I have a Nikon D7200 with a Tamron 18-400 zoom tha... (show quote)
Rent it first and find out for yourself.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jun 21, 2020 12:44:38 #
david vt
Loc: Vermont
From a technical perspective, @CO pulled up some great info for you. Remember when looking at the charts,
a) the lens have different min and max f stops, so look only a comparable stops, and b) remember that you can only compare the bottom end of the zoom range (up to 70mm - on the superzoom Tamron interpolate half was between the 50 and 100mm curves). Based on these charts, there is little difference between them when looking at comparable settings. Is the 24-70 sharper - across the board, yes, but not by much as CO notes. Will you see it in blowing up to 16x24? No idea.
c) @chg_canon asks a great question. What are you going to do above 70mm? Go as long as you can and then crop? Depending on how severe a crop, you are likely to lose a lot of sharpness and introduce a great deal of noise if you are trying to get where your current Tamron will get you at the long end. Change lens frequently? Only you know if you bounce outsize of the 24-70 range and then back in frequently.
In general, one would not expect a “superzoom” (400/18=22x) to be as sharp as a moderate zoom (70/24=2.9x). That said, this one is better than most.
Two other considerations:
1) What you did not state is what are most often shooting, and at what distance. I would look at your EXIF data on your most common shots and look at what f stop and length you were shooting. If you find you were in the 70mm or less range frequently and you are not cropping extensively, this might help with your decision.
While you are looking at this, note how often you shoot <24mm. If that 18-24mm range, especially on your crop sensor D7200, frequently finds it way into your shots, then this might be important.
2) min aperture. A big advantage of the 24-70s is the f2.8. Only you know the subjects and light you are shooting, and if lower DoF would help, or if you need more light to get your ISO down. At 70mm, you would gain about f5(?-guessing) down to f2.8 - about 1.5 stops. At the short end, likely gaining a stop or less at 24mm.
There is a reason why this lens is know as a great “walking around lens”. Are there better lens out there for a given situation - absolutely!. But, if you don’t (or can’t) walk around with a bag full of lens, then your current 18-400 might be the best lens for you.
As @chg-canon stated, many folks here are happy to spend your money. Only you can decide, based on what you want to use this potential new lens for, if the improvement in sharpness, noise, and DoF control is worth the trade-offs (money and otherwise)
This from a fellow D7200 shooter whom has had the Tamron 18-400 on my watch list as a possible next lens for a while. The only reason I have not is I frequently shoot indoor sports, so most of my lens are f4 or faster. If I was outdoor more, would have already pulled the trigger.
a) the lens have different min and max f stops, so look only a comparable stops, and b) remember that you can only compare the bottom end of the zoom range (up to 70mm - on the superzoom Tamron interpolate half was between the 50 and 100mm curves). Based on these charts, there is little difference between them when looking at comparable settings. Is the 24-70 sharper - across the board, yes, but not by much as CO notes. Will you see it in blowing up to 16x24? No idea.
c) @chg_canon asks a great question. What are you going to do above 70mm? Go as long as you can and then crop? Depending on how severe a crop, you are likely to lose a lot of sharpness and introduce a great deal of noise if you are trying to get where your current Tamron will get you at the long end. Change lens frequently? Only you know if you bounce outsize of the 24-70 range and then back in frequently.
In general, one would not expect a “superzoom” (400/18=22x) to be as sharp as a moderate zoom (70/24=2.9x). That said, this one is better than most.
Two other considerations:
1) What you did not state is what are most often shooting, and at what distance. I would look at your EXIF data on your most common shots and look at what f stop and length you were shooting. If you find you were in the 70mm or less range frequently and you are not cropping extensively, this might help with your decision.
While you are looking at this, note how often you shoot <24mm. If that 18-24mm range, especially on your crop sensor D7200, frequently finds it way into your shots, then this might be important.
2) min aperture. A big advantage of the 24-70s is the f2.8. Only you know the subjects and light you are shooting, and if lower DoF would help, or if you need more light to get your ISO down. At 70mm, you would gain about f5(?-guessing) down to f2.8 - about 1.5 stops. At the short end, likely gaining a stop or less at 24mm.
There is a reason why this lens is know as a great “walking around lens”. Are there better lens out there for a given situation - absolutely!. But, if you don’t (or can’t) walk around with a bag full of lens, then your current 18-400 might be the best lens for you.
As @chg-canon stated, many folks here are happy to spend your money. Only you can decide, based on what you want to use this potential new lens for, if the improvement in sharpness, noise, and DoF control is worth the trade-offs (money and otherwise)
This from a fellow D7200 shooter whom has had the Tamron 18-400 on my watch list as a possible next lens for a while. The only reason I have not is I frequently shoot indoor sports, so most of my lens are f4 or faster. If I was outdoor more, would have already pulled the trigger.
Jun 21, 2020 12:45:36 #
It's called a good walk around lens because of its size, focal length capabilities and decent quality for many.
I recommend that a new car may give you a better ride, even though you're satisfied with it's performance. Take a poll and see how that works out.
I recommend that a new car may give you a better ride, even though you're satisfied with it's performance. Take a poll and see how that works out.
Jun 21, 2020 13:52:49 #
Jim1938 wrote:
... I think it's very sharp ...
That is really all that matters. I use a Sigma 18-300 and find it is more than sharp enough for my needs.
Jun 21, 2020 17:06:50 #
PHRubin wrote:
That is really all that matters. I use a Sigma 18-300 and find it is more than sharp enough for my needs.
(Some people will continually wonder if there is a "better" lens or camera out there.)
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Jun 22, 2020 05:37:30 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Jim1938 wrote:
I have a Nikon D7200 with a Tamron 18-400 zoom tha... (show quote)
Depends a LOT on your experience and expertise. Normally, it's the photographer, not the lens, that most of the time produces a good image. If your not getting sharp 16X20 images without cropping from your current Tamron I doubt the 24-70 will make a difference.
Jun 22, 2020 06:52:42 #
What I want to tell you is that sharpness depends a lot on you. The sharpest lens in the world means nothing when the operator is not using basic photography and sound techniques. A tripod improves the sharpness of any lens.
Although the Nikon and Tamron 24-70 are great optics I would not recommend them to be used in a cropped sensor camera. You will do better using lenses made for use with those cameras and the old 17-55 f2.8 professional lens comes to mind.
All modern lenses are sharp enough for most uses. Buy exactly what you need.
Although the Nikon and Tamron 24-70 are great optics I would not recommend them to be used in a cropped sensor camera. You will do better using lenses made for use with those cameras and the old 17-55 f2.8 professional lens comes to mind.
All modern lenses are sharp enough for most uses. Buy exactly what you need.
Jun 22, 2020 08:33:48 #
In my opinion and ONLY my opinion, people get too caught up in the sharpness of a lens. There is so much more to the quality of a lens that's rarely discussed here. Things like how does the color render and the depth it offers. I'm far from an expert on lenses, even if I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time. However, in the past few years, I've bought and sold several lenses from Nikon, Tamron and Voigtlander. Lenses made from the 60's to current day.
If you put 2 lenses on a tripod and take a few images in different locations at the same settings, and the same focal length, either say (2) 50 mm primes of zooms at the same focal length, there will be a difference in more than sharpness. One will have more color aberration than the other, one will be sharper, one will have better colors. One will convert images to black and white much better due to the better micro contrast.
IMO and only mine, if you buy a lens purely on how sharp it is, many times you will end up with the inferior overall lens. The 58mm Voigtlander lets in so much more light than any other lens I own that sometimes I over expose and has a lot of CA until you get to F4 or F5.6, yet the color rendition on that lens is by far the best I own. It's one reason why some swear by Zeiss. The depth and color on those lenses is hard to beat. Leica lenses have a quality that people rave about, though I've never owned one myself.
The newer lenses are no doubt incredible and are sharp. If that is everything then why are people paying over $3,000 (assuming you can find one) for an old Nikon 58mm Noct lens? If you're happy with your lens then use it and enjoy it. Sharpness isn't everything in a lens.
If you put 2 lenses on a tripod and take a few images in different locations at the same settings, and the same focal length, either say (2) 50 mm primes of zooms at the same focal length, there will be a difference in more than sharpness. One will have more color aberration than the other, one will be sharper, one will have better colors. One will convert images to black and white much better due to the better micro contrast.
IMO and only mine, if you buy a lens purely on how sharp it is, many times you will end up with the inferior overall lens. The 58mm Voigtlander lets in so much more light than any other lens I own that sometimes I over expose and has a lot of CA until you get to F4 or F5.6, yet the color rendition on that lens is by far the best I own. It's one reason why some swear by Zeiss. The depth and color on those lenses is hard to beat. Leica lenses have a quality that people rave about, though I've never owned one myself.
The newer lenses are no doubt incredible and are sharp. If that is everything then why are people paying over $3,000 (assuming you can find one) for an old Nikon 58mm Noct lens? If you're happy with your lens then use it and enjoy it. Sharpness isn't everything in a lens.
Jun 22, 2020 08:39:13 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.