Nikon vs Nikon

I recently photographed an event. Part of the event is held indoors and at relatively close quarters, and part is held outside/inside at varying distances.

 

I picked up a Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ED lens earlier this year, and decided to use it for the indoor action. I use a 7100 body shooting A preferred (f11), with ISO set to 800 and the on body flash..

 

My process is to capture then load into Lightroom 3.5 for processing (don't laugh- I OWN it.....).

 

Straight from the card, all photos required minimal processing. Colors are natural, excellent sharpness, contrast, very little glare. Straighten if tilted, crop and in most cases just save to folder. However there was a shadow at the bottom of most frames captured using flash. Easy to crop out but still there out of the camera.

 

FX vs DX means that "24mm" is really 36mm and a bit too long for close use indoors- I found myself having to stand father away to adequately frame my subject.

 

I changed to a Nikon 18-140 f3.5-5.6 for the remainder of the event. 18mm is great for close in work, and 140mm has enough reach to create a usable image even 50 feet away and then cropped.

 

BUT- these photos required more processing ! I am used to this lens and can quickly process pictures because I know what to expect. In comparison to the 24-70, colors are flatter, sharpness needs tweaking, contrast boosted etc.

 

I was amazed at the difference. I can see how some view the 24-70 as a true general purpose lens for most purposes. The 24-70 is a heavy lens (I noticed when carrying it around for several hours), but IMHO worth the additional cost. I will look for ways to use it in the future.

The problem with the 24-70 and camera's pop up flash, is that the front of the lens sticks out too much for the flash at wide angle.

On my D7200 and 18-140, I have to remove the lens hood, or I will get a shadow from the hood. Same happened on the D70 with the 18-70, had to remove the hood.

The only solution is to use an external flash so the flash tube is higher, so the lens does not create a shadow.

Or put the flash on a rotating/pivoting flash bracket. This will put the flash above the camera and let you rotate the camera H/V to match the subject.

 

Optically you cannot compare the 2 lenses lenses. Just the price difference will tell you that.

The 24-70 is a 2.9x zoom that lists for $2,400 (almost 5x the price of the 18-140)

The 18-140 is a 7.8x zoom that lists for $500.

 

The 18-140 is a great 1-lens GP lens that will take you from 18mm out to 140mm.

But it is NOT a pro grade lens.

If you want better optics than the 18-140, then look at the 16-80 f/2.8-4 DX

I find the sharpness of the 18-140 slightly lacking, but not the contrast.

 

Without intending to insult, was your 18-140 absolutely clean Ross? A small smudge on the front or rear element can make a big difference to contrast.

 

FWIW, I bought a 3rd party clone hood for my 18-140; I wasn't going to pay Nikon's asking price for something that should have been included.

 

Ross, have you considered the 17-55mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor? Mine is very sharp and contrasty from wide open. Darned big and heavy though.

 

I also have a non-VC version of Tamron's f/2.8 17-50mm. It's much smaller and lighter than the Nikkor, and in my view just as sharp. My Tamron gets used far more than the Zoom-Nikkor, just on weight and size grounds alone, but I have to admit that the convenience and versatility + VR of the 18-140 is hard to resist. Even if it does mean sacrificing an amount of sharpness that's only noticeable in side-by-side comparisons.

Edited March 19, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

As already posted, the size of the lens hood (and maybe the lens by itself) can cast a distracting shadow when you use the in camera flash. To avoid that shadow caused by the lens or lens hood, you need to add a flash to the flash shoe to raise the light source above the lens/lens hood. Some possible Nikon flashes to consider are: Nikon SB-300 AF Speedlight , Nikon SB-700 AF Speedlight or the Nikon SB-5000 AF Speedlight. All have different features that need to be reviewed before you decide on which one best serves your purpose. The angle of coverage is important if you will be using a lens at a wide or short focal length.

 

Even if you switch the lens to a smaller one like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens the in camera flash will cause that nasty shadow with the lens hood left on at 24mm. I have this lens as well as the 24-70mm and use it all the time because of its smaller size and lighter weight.

Without seeing the photo, I would have to guess that the shutter speed was slightly too fast for the flash? If the lens was causing a shadow, wouldn't that tend to fall in the middle & top of the image?

 

Kent in SD

Without seeing the photo, I would have to guess that the shutter speed was slightly too fast for the flash? If the lens was causing a shadow, wouldn't that tend to fall in the middle & top of the image?

 

Kent in SD

 

The pop-up flash is above the lens.

So the lens shadow would be on the bottom of the frame, in the middle.

Thank you for the replies. My 18-140 is clean so that can be ruled out. I now realize the bottom shadow is due to using the body flash. Either I will get an accessory flash, or I will learn to compensate when framing, and crop out any shadow. Overall though, I guess it comes down to inherent differences in quality....you do get what you pay for in glass.

 

This exercise has caused me to think about a better all around lens. How do the 16-85 or 16-80 compare to the 18-140 on the DX side ? Are improvements in IQ incremental or substantial ?

Ii can only speak from known samples but I have a 16-85 and my wife has an 18-140 and the 18-140 seems to be a little sharper and more consistent. My 16-85 is a gray market one bought used, and definitely well used, and does suffer from back focus, so perhaps it's not the best example. It's very well made, and I like that extra couple of millimeters on the wide end. I AF tuned mine at about 50 mm, and it's quite decent these days, but AF fine tuning can only be done at one focal length per lens, and I think the 18-140 is a little sharper over the whole range. This is not to say the 16-85 is bad. just that the 18-140 is surprisingly good. Some people have complained that the 16-85 has nasty bokeh. I'm not bothered but if you are, you should probably check out examples on line.

 

I also get shadows with the built in flash if I shoot at shorter focal lengths with the hood on. but its all right with the hood off.

 

And of course I reiterate that my judgment is only of the two samples I have access to. I'd be very tempted to get the 16-80, just for the greater speed, but it's awfully expensive.

The 16-80 f/2.8-4 has good glass + relatively fast speed (compared to the 18-140).

If you are shooting in low light, and want to use a zoom, this is it.

 

I would LIKE this lens, but because of the cost, that will commit me to the DX format.

Right now, I am on the fence about going up to FX, because of certain lenses.

How do the 16-85 or 16-80 compare to the 18-140 on the DX side

I owned all three and without having done too detailed a comparison, my experience seems to coincide with the ranking order I've seen on the web: 16-80 better than 18-140 better than 16-85. The-digital-picture.com has comparisons of the three lenses - but the results contradict my own experience - the 16-85 there leads the other two by a wide margin (not sure though the D3X is a good camera to test those DX lenses on; the DX crop is just 10.5MP). I liked the 16-85 on the D300 but not so much anymore on a D7100 or D7200, for which I got the 18-140. Nowadays, I have the 16-80 on a D500 (wouldn't pay full price for the 16-80 in the same way I wouldn't have full price for the 16-85).

Thanks everyone ! I am generally satisfied with the sharpness of the 18-140. I have used many images captured at 120-140 without difficulty. But in comparison to the 24-70 (36-105 crop compensated), I have to say the FX glass is much better in every comparison. Color rendition, contrast, sharpness are better, and required less post processing tweaks for a final image. I went through a lot of pictures recently taken with the 18-140, and most of the close in shots were taken between 18-40mm, so the WA range is a necessity for me. I will investigate the 16-80. WA is more important to me than absolute reach, and with 24mp at my disposal in a D7100, I can crop to achieve a close up if needed. Consensus opinion is the 16-85 is the worst of the 3 lenses in direct comparison, and I am glad to receive feedback from those who have used all three. As to cost, well I rarely by new, and I sell off what I no longer need use or want....

The little SB-300 barely gives you more height above the lens, or more power, than the popup flash.

 

If you're doing event work seriously, then you need a serious flash.

 

Personally I wouldn't settle for anything with less power and flexibility than an SB-800, 900, 910 or one of the many clones from Nissin, YongNuo or Godox.

 

Steer clear of a brand called 'Meike' though. I bought one of their SB-910 copies and found it ridiculously underpowered.