Adding a street lens, looking for Nikon advice.
Jul 21, 2014 17:10:25 #
streetmarty wrote:
That's interesting were I've read it is weak on both ends. So much for that review. Thanks.
No way! It is a really excellent lens if you want a lens that can go anywhere and shoot almost everything. But only on a dx body. Your 28-85 is small, sharp but only 1/3 the reach. Now the purists are going to compare it to prime lenses, of which you will have to carry a whole bag, and maybe be able to see the difference. And then again maybe not because you will usually miss the shot changing lenses.
Jul 21, 2014 17:17:02 #
OK, it's back in the mix!! Thank you very much.
CatMarley wrote:
No way! It is a really excellent lens if you want a lens that can go anywhere and shoot almost everything. But only on a dx body. Your 28-85 is small, sharp but only 1/3 the reach. Now the purists are going to compare it to prime lenses, of which you will have to carry a whole bag, and maybe be able to see the difference. And then again maybe not because you will usually miss the shot changing lenses.
Jul 21, 2014 17:30:44 #
RON 11
Loc: Pittsburgh
I have the the 16-85 because i do need that wider focal length but if I did not, the 24-120 would be my hands down other choice. Use to own one and found it to be extremely versatile.
Jul 21, 2014 17:52:35 #
streetmarty wrote:
OK, it's back in the mix!! Thank you very much.
A lot of folks hate Ken Rockwell, but he has a nice comparison of all the lenses you mentioned at:http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm
Jul 21, 2014 18:03:21 #
Jul 21, 2014 18:04:17 #
I have one. It's great.
streetmarty wrote:
That's interesting were I've read it is weak on both ends. So much for that review. Thanks.
Jul 21, 2014 18:05:01 #
Jul 21, 2014 18:06:46 #
I recently returned fro a 3 week trip to China. I took my Nikon D7100 with a Nikon 18-200 plus a 35mm 1.8. I never even put the 35 on the camera. For my money, the 18-200 is the perfect travel/all around lens balancing range and weight. For low light just bump up the ISO. Remember that dragging a heavy body and lens gets old fast. By the way, my photos look great.
Jul 21, 2014 18:09:28 #
Nikon 16-85 VR. Ain't too shabby. New, is expensive. Used,--Check out a
Reputable seller on the Bay or Amazon.
Reputable seller on the Bay or Amazon.
Jul 21, 2014 18:12:13 #
Just remember, the stuff we have now is way better that the gear photographers had 15-20 years ago & they were taking fantastic pictures then. I would go for maximum range. 18-200 is a great lens. Any shortcomings are slight but still far superior to anything 15-20 years ago. Imagination, Subject matter & composition are what make a great photo not engineering specs...
Jul 21, 2014 18:47:34 #
I think you would have to be the judge of that - Soft is in the eye of the beholder and the size you blow it up to on your computer screen - I've seen folks blow it up so far you couldn't put the print on the side of a building. On Ken Rockwell; he has a lot of good information. I for one do like his research and discussion on lenses. He was a Nikon guy for some time and now likes Cannon. That isn't much different than somebody changing from Chevys to Fords. There are a lot of places to get information on the internet - some of it is reliable some isn't. I have learned enough from Ken Rockwell to make intelligent decisions. Remember - all of us have opinions about what is good and what isn't - You have to judge how much you want to spend on Glass. Good glass is the equalizer!!!!
Jul 21, 2014 19:16:54 #
Marty,
I shoot a Nikon D7100 and the 18-200mm VRII stays on my camera 85% - 90% of the time. Find it to be a very sharp lens.
Don
I shoot a Nikon D7100 and the 18-200mm VRII stays on my camera 85% - 90% of the time. Find it to be a very sharp lens.
Don
Jul 21, 2014 19:30:31 #
streetmarty wrote:
Are you using the 2.8 or the 3.5?
Hi streetmarty the 24-85mmVR is a 3.5. People won't believe this, but I had a 50mm1.8G and after a while I sold it because I thought the 24-85 was so crisp I never used the 50.
Keep in mind the f2.8 is a "D" series(older) lens, meaning it has the aperture ring on the lens. The f3.5 is a "G" series and much newer technology without the aperture ring. This is because the aperture is adjusted by/through the camera sub-command(front) dial and viewed in the viewfinder. Much quicker and efficient and it has Vibration Reduction. Another plus.
Good Luck.
Jul 21, 2014 19:31:38 #
streetmarty wrote:
I know there are a lot of people here that do not care for Ken Rockwell. Right or wrong he sure has done a lot of work. I read were the 24-85 in 3.5 is actually sharper than the 2.8. Is that possible? Thanks.
The problem with the 24-70 f2.8 is that it lacks VR. At shutter speeds below 1/200 camera shake will have a detrimental effect on the 24-70; at least in my experience the 24-85 was sharper. At best the f2.8 is 2 stops faster at the high end and 1 at the low end, so the 4 stop advantage of VR more than makes up loss of speed to the 24-70. For your city/street photography, you most likely don't need high shutter speeds and the improved bokeh, potential advantages of the 24-70. Besides for the price of the 24-70 f2.8 you could own the 24-85 and the 28-300 or possibly a couple of fast primes!
Jul 21, 2014 20:30:29 #
Nikon_DonB wrote:
I have the 24-85 and it is on my D600 all the time. It "IS" my walk around lens. It is exceptionally crisp and I love it. The only time I remove it is for the 70-300 or the 150-500.
This! Quite a good lens for the 610, especially at the price.
Love mine! On a DX though it is about 36 - 128 which may not be wide enough for you.
Dave
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.