24-70mm 2.8 is a g len?!

<p>http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom24-70mmf_28g/index.htm<br>

I remember few years back there were so many 2.8 zoom lens with an aperture ring. However, Nikon don't make lens with aperture which is disgrace because it is like silencing for users who use old manual nikons! Is this any news that the Nikon is reviving the old 2.8 zoom lens with an aperture ring?<br>

P.S. I am planning to invest in FX sensor cameras in the future.</p>

<p>Nikon is slowly doing away with aperture rings. I highly doubt they're going to make any <em>new</em> lenses with aperture rings.</p>

<p>New lenses with aperture rings haven't been released for years now. They haven't been needed on any DSLR Nikon has made. Nikon is moving to an all AF-S line up (AFAIK, there aren't any AF-S lenses with aperture rings, though there may be some AF-I lenses with them), and eventually (as evidenced by the new PC-E lenses with the EMD iris), lenses that no longer have the mechanical stop down lever. </p>

<p>The 35-70 2.8 and 28-70 2.8 are available to use, both with aperture rings.</p>

<p>Nikon clearly wants to sell new camera's (which makes sense for a commercial company).</p>

<p>BTW: My experience is that old manual NIkons work best with old manual lenses. Modern AF lenses are not really designed to use with manual focus. You can do it, but the old MF lenses do it better....</p>

<p>Franklin Polk:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...AFAIK, there aren't any AF-S lenses with aperture rings, ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is the 28-70 f2.8, the af-s 70-200, and the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, <br>

Pretty much the whole previous generation of pro zoom Nikon AF lenses. IF is not a function of the auto focus or diaphragm technology.<br>

IF goes often together with AF-S as it lowers the mass of the moving parts and this makes it easier to have a faster auto focus .</p>

<p>Nikon still sell manual lenses</p>

<p>There will never be another new Nikon F-Mount lens with an aperture ring.</p>

<p>Ever.</p>

<p>Buy old used lenses or deal with it are our only two choices. Of course, you don't really need the aperture ring on any of the current Digital SLRs, never did.</p>

<p>btw, you won't find an aperture ring on any new Canon, Olympus, Pentax, or Sony again either.</p>

<p>O that suck, I was planning to buy a used Nikon F3</p>

<p>The 70-200mm is a G lens, as is another lens that came out at almost the same time, that being the 17-55mm.</p>

<p>I think he meant the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>The higher end G lenses have a certain degree of weather sealing: a gasket off the rear of the lens mount to seal lens mount to camera, and wide anti-infiltration rings under zoom and focus rings. The aperture ring is narrower (and therefore harder to seal) than the zoom and focus rings, and keeping it would also make the rear lens-to-camera seal a lot more difficult to design and produce.</p>

<p>With clean used F100 bodies available for around $200, and clean used F5 for $300, anyone who wants to run film on the latest $1700 G lenses like 24-70 f2.8 G or 14-24 f2.8 G still has options.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon zoom with an aperture ring, the 70-300mm ED. Do I ever use the aperture ring? No, why would I? Who here shoots with a digital SLR and uses it? I can't imagine why, unless it's a manual focus lens.</p>

<p>My situation :<br>

Before i have my D3 , 24-70 and some included my favorite 85/1.4 CZ with F3HP now. i used to have 28-70 2.8 with my D200. it really important to me that the lens is capable with the old manual camera that 28-70 was so fine to do the job. I used to shot the 28-70 with FM3a and F3HP, it is so dramatic to explain that feeling you know. the lens was sharp and very good contrast ( just abig heavy and not very well balance with small body such as old F series) . However, i used to compared my 24-70 with the old 28-70, the new version show the best result and especially when i shot with my D3, the new 24-70 is just amazing compare to what i used to with D200-28-70 and 28-70 with D3. IT fast !!!! Accuracy is just on every shot, i shot for press and some time for event and wedding party so i have chance to use this lens to it's full capability. at night this lens can track the focus like the way you want and dear ! the 2.8 just done the job like no other lens i ever used because it is Sharp and not soft at all the minor of using it at 2.8 is just a very light vignet which can control in camera vignetting control. I honor my 28-70 with alot of good photos and now it retired. my new 24-70 is proofed to be better and it is the must for every one that need high quality on Nikon system. BUT. this 2470 is not fit with my F series T_T and i think it is the time to just keep my F series light weight and shot it occasionally with some prime lenses.</p>

<p>Your situation:<br>

<br /> You just buy it you will know about it. i write my situation here. Nikon FX for eg: D3x, you really need a high end lens to bring out the best of it's pixel.</p>

<p>Enjoy taking photo !</p>

<p>Nikon is introducing all their new autofocus lenses without aperture rings these days. They did introduce three new manual focus lenses with an aperture ring just last year; these are the PC-E Nikkors (24 & 45 mm entirely new, 85mm updated design) which have an electronic aperture (but with aperture ring available on the lens).</p>

<p>In my opinion the "G" design is badly flawed; it prevents the use of Nikon extension tubes, bellows, scientific use of lenses in instruments, reversal, etc. all basic things. What's more the aperture control from the body via the mechanical G lever is less repeatable so people have issues when stitching images etc. Also some people prefer the ergonomics of the aperture control from the lens.</p>

<p>I suspect what's probably going to happen later on is that all new Nikon lenses will be "E" type, just like Canon did 20 years ago with their EF lenses, and the mechanical interface will disappear entirely. Along with compatibility with film & older than D3 digital cameras.</p>

<p>Who buys brand new lenses anyway? I'll take a 28-70 anyday.</p>

<p>For normal shooting, the aperture ring would be a serious pain to use for me. The index and thumb wheels are so much faster.<br>

That said, I do use the aperture ring only for specific shooting. When I need to shot to shot exposure accuracy to be exact, the aperture ring is unbeatable. G lenses cannot deliver this precision. However, this is a special circumstance that I'm guessing few use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>O that suck, I was planning to buy a used Nikon F3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd still recommend getting the F3, it's a spectacular camera. A possible solution is to buy the older generation zooms that still have dedicated aperture rings. I own the 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D and they work superbly on my F3HP. Without the motor drive on the F3, I do find the pro zooms to be rather lopsided on the body. So I tend to use MF primes on the F3 and keep the bag light. But I really do appreciate being able to use the expensive glass I bought on more than my D80 and F100. It's definitely a bummer that Nikon's moving past dedicated aperture rings.</p>

<p>Ilkka, we're not usually so on opposite sides on a particular issue, but I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from on this one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my opinion the "G" design is badly flawed; it prevents the use of Nikon extension tubes, bellows,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Floating elements also prevent this, or at least make it a lot harder. How often do you put a non-G 6mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor on a bellows?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>scientific use of lenses in instruments,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I'm not sure which G lenses I'd want to use in a scientific instrument. My spectrometer uses an old 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>reversal, etc. all basic things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reversal is mostly a prime lens thing, it's generally not particularly successful on zooms. So far, the only prime to be replaced by a G is the 50mm f1.4. And again, reversed lenses can be a pain with floating element designs.</p>

<p>Look at it this way, a manual aperture control for reversed lenses is possible with an update to the aperture control mechanisms of the PB-6 bellows or the BR-6 stop down ring. Extension tubes can easily be updated with the addition of contacts (Kenko does it) and it's even possible to do that to a bellows. G lenses have been with us for over 7 years, but Nikon has not seen fit to update their bellows, tubes, or reverse adapters, at all.</p>

<p>That tells us a lot about the size of the macro market (or at least how Nikon sees the size of the macro market).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's more the aperture control from the body via the mechanical G lever is less repeatable so people have issues when stitching images etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been stacking images for many years, and this had not been an issue. The aperture inconsistency is a fractional stop, and the panoramic stitching software (even a 10 year old copy of Panorama Tools) can equalize levels. (In Michigan, where we have real "manly man" weather, we get more variance across the stitch from lighting variations than the aperture mechanism). Aperture variations do cause flicker on time-lapse imagery, but the software that puts the image sequence together into a video format normalizes the levels...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also some people prefer the ergonomics of the aperture control from the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some people prefer a good dose of alcohol, heroin, or cocain. That doesn't make it good for them. Lead and cyanide taste good, but are very bad for you. The "ergonomics of the aperture control from the lens" are as follows...</p>

<ul>

<li>Muscle strain - with a long lens, you bring your hand back from the balanced holding position near the COG (center of gravity) of the lens/camera system, causing the camera to pitch forward. You counter this with strain on the muscles that perform radial deviation (bending the wrist outward in the direction of the thumb) because the muscles that do this also perform the task of extending the thumb (making it "stick out"). You're doing that at the same time you're trying to grip the camera using the opposing muscle. </li>

<li>Carpel tunnel strain - on a small bodied camera (FM or F3 without a drive, F100, D300) it increases the extension (backwards bend) of the left wrist.</li>

<li>Carpel tunnel pressure - On a large bodied camera (anything with a drive or battery pack, F5, D2X, or D3) pulling the hand back to get thumb and index finger onto the aperture ring moves you from a comfortable position where the weight of the camera rests on the "finger end" of the palm bones, to a position that puts the weight of the camera on the back of the palm (over the spread carpel tunnel). </li>

</ul>

<p>(does anyone want the medical terms for the muscles and tendons? I left them out because I was criticized on a different forum for using them repeatedly).</p>

<p><em>So far, the only prime to be replaced by a G is the 50mm f1.4</em></p>

<p>Huh? What about the 35/1.8 DX, the 60/2.8 AF-S micro, 105/2.8 AF-S micro, 200/2 AF-S, etc. Many primes have been replaced by G versions and there is no end in sight. What's more the PC-E Micro Nikkors only go to 1:2 native and don't take Nikon extension tubes or bellows because they're "E". Not sure if Kenko solves the problem but the stories I've heard about their mechanical quality put me off. I guess I'll eventually get their set, what else is there to do unless I want to start putting contacts to Nikon extension systems myself. I just don't see any fun in that.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>Look at it this way, a manual aperture control for reversed lenses is possible with an update to the aperture control mechanisms of the PB-6 bellows or the BR-6 stop down ring.</em></p>

<p>How?</p>

<p>The CRC "issue" is easy to solve: when you use extension, you set the lens to the minimum focus distance and adjust your extension to get the right distance and magnification. Make a bag bellows for shorter extensions if needed. The 100mm ZF is a brilliant example of a lens that performs exceptionally well throughout its native focusing range (1:2 to infinity) <em>and</em> gives better results than Micro-Nikkors at 1:1 to 1:2 when used with extension. Shouldn't be too hard for Nikon to make their macro lenses extension tube friendly, since Zeiss can do it with flying colors.</p>

<p>What bugs me here is that Nikon makes no effort to a system that works properly together these days. They have so many different lines of lenses and methods of control and communication - it's a jungle, and they couldn't care less about those left without a solution. It has been thanks to Zeiss that I've been encouraged to invest in Nikon so heavily; without their lens line filling the gaps I would have not felt Nikon's system is worth putting faith into.</p>

<p>The G lenses are difficult to use on Canons or on scientific equipment. G is all about unnecessary cost-cutting.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p><em> the panoramic stitching software (even a 10 year old copy of Panorama Tools) can equalize levels</em></p>

<p>Sure, you can correct just about anything in software. But if you aim to minimize post-processing then it's better to get it as close to correct in the camera as possible. I would prefer not to adjust anything in post on most images so that I can just get the prints out as quickly as possible, but all sorts of little things make it difficult to achieve this in practice. "G" would have been a hard sell for slide film.</p>

<p><em> That doesn't make it good for them.</em></p>

<p>I agree with you that when using a long lens hand-held (who does that?) or one of the integral vertical grip bodies is not a good situation for lens aperture ring use. But that's the thing when you use a CPU lens with an aperture ring, you have the choice of body or lens aperture control. Why does it have to go away? It should be the user's choice. When you use a small camera and small lens, I doubt the aperture ring use causes any issues. Incidentally the integral grips that make aperture ring use difficult on the D3 etc. are also incompatible with some extension tubes and tripod heads (e.g. PN-11 on some heads), and have led to the infamous tall tripod collar feet in Nikon long lenses that are so unstable and make these excruciatingly expensive lenses unsuitable for intermediate shutter speeds on tripod.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What about the 35/1.8 DX, the 60/2.8 AF-S micro, 105/2.8 AF-S micro, 200/2 AF-S, etc. Many primes have been replaced by G versions and there is no end in sight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 35mm DX and the 200mm f2 are new. You won't be reversing the 200mm f2.0, putting it on a bellows, or doing any of those other things you said you need an aperture ring for. You're right about the 60mm f2.8 and the 105mm f2.8, but again, you won't be building them into scientific equipment, reversing them, etc.</p>

<p>There may be "no end in sight", but the "replacement" process, such as it is, is about the slowest thing I've ever seen. How serious is the problem of not being able to use lenses that won't even be built for another 10 years on a 25 year old bellows?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's more the PC-E Micro Nikkors only go to 1:2 native and don't take Nikon extension tubes or bellows because they're "E".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They were aimed mostly at product photographers. They're not "friendly" to extension, the fronts are so huge and the front elements so deeply recessed that they're useless on tubes, let alone a bellows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure if Kenko solves the problem</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, aside from the PC-E lenses being useless extended, the Kenko tubes, having their origins as teleconverters with the optic capsule left out, have very narrow openings and tend to vignette used straight on a full frame camera, and won't permit tilt or shift movements even on a DX camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Look at it this way, a manual aperture control for reversed lenses is possible with an update to the aperture control mechanisms of the PB-6 bellows or the BR-6 stop down ring.</em><br>

How?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The stop-down lever on the back of the lens allows the lens to be set to any aperture. The current BR-6 has a large stop-down lever that slids the lens lever fairly slowly. Extend this idea to an aperture ring on the BR-6. It's just a moving lever, it's not rocket science.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The CRC "issue" is easy to solve: when you use extension, you set the lens to the minimum focus distance and adjust your extension to get the right distance and magnification</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Easily solved, unless you plan on reversing the lens. In that case, the optimal CRC setting is usually the reverse of the magnification ratio. Want a 60mm f2.8 to work at 2X reversed? Set it to 1:2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 100mm ZF is a brilliant example of a lens that performs exceptionally well throughout its native focusing range (1:2 to infinity) <em>and</em> gives better results than Micro-Nikkors at 1:1 to 1:2 when used with extension. Shouldn't be too hard for Nikon to make their macro lenses extension tube friendly, since Zeiss can do it with flying colors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 100mm ZF is a brilliant example of a lens that can't go to 1:1, doesn't have VR, and can't support AF-S, because its long unit focusing double helicoid is too stiff. Flying colors? LOL!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What bugs me here is that Nikon makes no effort to a system that works properly together these days. They have so many different lines of lenses and methods of control and communication - it's a jungle, and they couldn't care less about those left without a solution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd estimate the Nikon system "works properly together" for 99.9% of users. Compare it to Canon's "scrap everything" approach. "they couldn't care less about those left without a solution" to what, exactly?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The G lenses are difficult to use on Canons</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, there's an argument that will impress Nikon management. How easy are the Canon lenses to use on Nikon equipment?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or on scientific equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I asked you this before. What scientific equipment? (And you can answer in as much detail as you like, I've designed three industrial cameras, a spectrophotometer, and an interesting scannign spectrohelipgraph)</p>

<p>Better yet, what scientific equipment are you using that would be better served by the bulky, heavy 105mm VR (with it's macro capability compromised in order to make it a better portrait lens) than an older 105mm manual focus, or that Zeiss you keep going on and on and on about?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>G is all about unnecessary cost-cutting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>G is all about weather seals on the high end lenses, and not having the entry level users continually calling Nikon technical support to help with the "FEE" error because they managed to unlock the minimum aperture lock lever on the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> the panoramic stitching software (even a 10 year old copy of Panorama Tools) can equalize levels</em><br>

Sure, you can correct just about anything in software. But if you aim to minimize post-processing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's panoramic stitching. <strong>It's 100% about post processing.</strong> You can't get around that. And you don't have to get around it, because stitching software either does level equalization automatically with no way to defeat it (Autopano, PhotoShop), or turns it on by default, and makes you hunt down a check box if you want to disable it (PTgui, Hugin).</p>

<p>I've been doing it for over a decade, am active on multiple panorama forums, and I've yet to see a single discussion where people complain about exposure inconsistencies from G lenses or recommend putting the camera into the obsolete apertuer ring control mode.</p>

<p>You are creating some of the most absurd strawmen I've ever seen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with you that when using a long lens hand-held (who does that?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Event photographers. The largest consumer of Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, the most popular footed, long lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or one of the integral vertical grip bodies is not a good situation for lens aperture ring use. But that's the thing when you use a CPU lens with an aperture ring, you have the choice of body or lens aperture control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are using a body with aperture ring support. And if you want to give up automatic aperture compensation on the macro lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why does it have to go away?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Weather sealing. Increased reliability. (I mentioned those issues in two other posts). Reduced used confusion at the entry level (that's a new one for this post).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It should be the user's choice. When you use a small camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The aperture ring is not supported on small cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and small lens, I doubt the aperture ring use causes any issues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It causes the same issues with interference with the medial volar nerve I mentioed earlier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Incidentally the integral grips that make aperture ring use difficult on the D3 etc. are also incompatible with some extension tubes and tripod heads (e.g. PN-11 on some heads),</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then get a different head. PN-11 seems fine on my Acratech.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and have led to the infamous tall tripod collar feet in Nikon long lenses that are so unstable and make these excruciatingly expensive lenses unsuitable for intermediate shutter speeds on tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The tripod feet start near the rear of the lens, come straight down (radially away from the axis of the lens) with a short pillar, and finally extend the foot forward to get closer to the center of gravity. That has nothing to do with clearing the integral grip. In fact, having the tripod ring on the lens as far rearward as possible and then coming down and forward increases the interference with the grip.</p>

<p>Nikon, Canon, etc. design large lenses so important manual controls (focus and zoom) are near the center of gravity, so you can operate them while supporting a lens. So the rotating tripod collar cannot be at the center of gravity, it needs to either be in front of the COG or behind it. All lens makers put it behind the COG for long lenses and extend the foot forward to get to the COG. The longer and longer struts, moving the foot farther from the lens axis, are a resposne to people wanting to be able to tilt the lenses farther up and down ehen mounted on tripods. And an annoying user demand (more like a fashion statement) that the foot should serve as a carrying handle.</p>