24-70mm f2.8 or...

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by anthony_r|3, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. I am looking to buy some new lenses and...
    I have been debating this for while trying to figure out if I should get what I want to get =p
    I started out with D300 which my girl friend is using now (occasionally my backup) and currently am using D700.
    Other than 18-70mm kit lens that came with D300, I have been staying with prime lenses mostly: 20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4.
    I have been looking at 24-70mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.4 for long~ time now and...
    for what I do (hobby mostly, nothing professional), I have decided to go with 85mm f1.8 although I still dont know whether I am going to get 1.8D or 1.8G. (may be you guys can help me on this too)
    I do lot of landscape picture, storm chasing and occasional event photo for friends and time to time, having prime lenses cause problems - changing lenses and carrying so much things.
    My biggest concern is 24-70mm f2.8... I know it is one of the best lens you can own (holy trinity) but for what I do and for what I need, I just dont know if it is worth the investment.
    If I sell D300 with 18-70mm, it probably would be easy choice... but knowing that I am going to hold on to them, I just dont know what to do.
    At this point I am either going to buy 24-70mm f2.8 or not. If I buy a mid-range zoom lens, I would rather get the lens that will do it right. But looking at what I already own and being hobby photographer, I dont know if I should even consider buying this lens.
    What do you guys think? stay with prime lenses that I already have including 85mm or get 24-70mm as well.
     
  2. First the easy answer: Get the 85/1.8G instead of the D. It's a much better lens in every way and a bargain. You can really use this lens wide open. It really is sharp from corner to corner stopped down a stop or two.
    As for the 24-70, that's tougher. It's an excellent lens, with a good "nanocoat" look. It renders mid and low tones very /very/ nicely. It has /awful/ bokeh. But stopped down, it's a beautiful lens. Of the primes you have now, it beats all of them. It's very well built indeed. If you are doing event work, then clearly you don't have time to change lenses.
    The downside. It's expensive, though refurbs sometimes show up at $1500 or so. It's heavy. It distorts at both ends. It isn't always the most beautiful option for each focal length it covers, but it is always very good.
    How are you with manual focus?
     
  3. Get the 85/1.8G instead of the D.​
    I second that suggestion - and if you are in the US, there's currently a $100 discount on the G (until March 1).
    24-70 - indeed a tougher decision. If shooting mostly indoor events, then the lens is almost a must. I don't, and I learned from using the 17-55/2.8 DX that I can easily do without a fast mid-range zoom for what I shoot; so the 24-70 is not a lens for me on FX (or DX for that matter). For landscape photography, I don't need an f/2.8 zoom. As a walk-around, the lens is too large and heavy, and also to restricted in its range; and I wouldn't want one without VR anyway.
     
  4. Seems to me it's just the price that's getting in the way of your decision Anthony, so why not get Tamron's SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8? It's about 1/4 the price of the Nikon and delivers (I'd estimate) 95% of the optical quality. It's also much, much lighter and more compact. It delivers amazing detail on my D800, so a D700 won't even make it break a sweat.
    OK, 28mm isn't the same as 24mm, but then you get an extra 5mm at the long end.
     
  5. I was going to suggest getting the 28-70 f2.8 Nikon instead of the 24-70. Honestly - that 4mm on the low end doesn't matter. The price is $800 or under most days.
    Dave
     
  6. for the amount of indoor shootings I would be doing, I guess it is not so so worth it although we cannot argue about its quality.
    I did check out alternatives like nikons 24-120, tamron 28-75, sigma 24-70
    for 24-120... yes its cheaper, but at this price point, I might as well spend a bit more and get 24-70 :p
    Problem with sigma and tamron is that non of these guys are weather sealed...
    I do take my camera out for lightning photos and sometimes I do get hit by bad rain... Id rather have some sort of sealing but... not too sure how "built quality" on lenses really work
     
  7. delivers (I'd estimate) 95% of the optical quality​
    i have the tamron too, as i point out every time RJ makes this suggestion, but i'd rate it as a 7 or 8 for landscape, a 9 for walkaround, and a 6 or 7 for events, with the 24-70 being about an 8, 7 and and 9, respectively. it hunts in low light, while focus accuracy is much better on the 24-70. it's also more susceptible to flare from contra light. if you can swing the 24-70, that would be the way to go. it's also more environmentally-sealed and has a much sturdier build. for FX, the 24-70 is an essential lens, especially if you cant be doing frequent lens changing due to shooting conditions. another option is the nikon 28-70 aka "the beast" which is about as good as the tamron optically and has AF-S and rugged build to boot.
     
  8. 28mm never really worked for me - just not wide enough
    indoors. 24mm is usually perfect. Wider is nice.

    So (you guessed it) no 28-something for me on a
    'walkaround/indoors' zoom. I own the Nikon 24-70 and it is
    lovely.. and it is BIG. Sometimes too big.
     
  9. Eric, which version of the Tamron 28-70 do you have? Is it the BIM (G type) model? Because I have difficulty equating the lens I have with your description of it. For example I experience no hunting for AF in low light. I've just tried it in my unlit stairwell on a dull and overcast late winter's afternoon, and got perfect focus every time within a fraction of a second using the centre focusing square on my D800. To give you an idea of how low the light was, I couldn't actually see any detail in the subject through the viewfinder, while the exposure reading was 1/15th second @ f/2.8 and 6400 ISO(!). How much more low light do you want to get?
    Also I've never had a problem with flare on the Tamron; at least no more so than with any other lens. There are certainly no nasty surprises like I sometimes get from the 14-24mm Zoom Nikkor.
    As for the build quality not equalling that of the Nikon. Do a Google search for "Nikon 24-70 zoom ring problem", and see how many hits you get. I've experienced the reported stiffness/sloppiness and/or gritty feeling for myself on at least 3 separate samples of 24-70mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor. This was on demonstration models that I was hoping to buy. Needless to say I haven't yet been tempted to pay over 1200 UK pounds for the privilege of owning a lens that might seize up on me at any time.
     
  10. The "holy trinity" nickname to me has always been a bit overhyped - yes, three great pieces of optics, but all of them carry some sort of compromise - for me, the worst being all three are large, heavy and pretty expensive. They're not the right choices by definition. Personally, for what you describe, I'd stay away from the 24-70 f/2.8. Yes it's a great performer. It's also too large and too heavy (esp. if you come from smallish primes!). Plus, for landscapes there is really no advantage, as the majority of work is stopped down to f/8 or f/11 - so you're spending a lot of money extra, carry a lot of extra weight for an extra stop of light you won't use much....
    Well, that was my reasoning anyway. Faced with the same decision as yours, I decided in the end for the 24-120 f/4VR, and keep the primes for the times I know I want the wider apertures or when I know I've got the time. The 24-120VR is not as nice a landscape lens as my 16-85VR (DX) was, but it is a really fine lens. Too expensive, though, and now I would probably opt for the 24-85VR instead. Carry a prime alongside, and it can do pretty much anything. If you really really want a f/2.8 lens: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Maybe not as great as some of the others, but a lot nicer and the wallet, and size/weight again.
    Weathersealing is very overrated, and the resistance to normal rain of normal gear is very underrated. I've used the 24-120 and previously the 16-85 in pretty bad weather - no problem. Just clean and dry as soon as you can, and you'll be fine with any of these lenses.
    For the 85mm: the f/1.8G, as said above.
     
  11. Eric, which version of the Tamron 28-70 do you have? Is it the BIM (G type) model?​
    no,i have the older model, with the aperture ring. Don't get me wrong, i like the lens, and it is optically very sharp from f/4 onwards. 2.8 is noticeably softer than the 24-70, though. it's a great size for walkarounds with an FX body where the 24-70 would be overkill. but it does hunt in low light, just like the tamron 17-50 i used to have. and the focus isn't as accurate and fast as the 24-70's AF-S, either. it's stayed in my bag because of the optical quality and light weight, but i dont use it that much.
    Also I've never had a problem with flare on the Tamron; at least no more so than with any other lens.​
    in direct comparison to the 24-70, which has modern coatings, the Tamron is more prone to flare.
    Do a Google search for "Nikon 24-70 zoom ring problem", and see how many hits you get. I've experienced the reported stiffness/sloppiness and/or gritty feeling for myself on at least 3 separate samples of 24-70mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor.​
    all i can relate is my own personal experience with the 24-70; i have yet to experience this problem on my lens, which i've had for about 3 years. i consider the 24-70 to be the go-to lens for FX and a must-have if you're doing events. there's some distortion at 24mm, but basically, this is a lens i never have to worry about in high-performance situations. the focus is near-instantaneous and to this day, the shots it renders continue to amaze me. i also don't find the bokeh as bad as Luke does. however, the price is steep, so if you're not getting paid to shoot, less-expensive options might come into play. in my case, the lens has paid for itself, but for others, it might be difficult to justify this expense. it does have weather-sealing as the OP points out. i believe the nikon 28-70 AF-S is also weather-sealed, so if that's a consideration, i would look for a used one of those if the 24-70 is too much $$.
     
  12. for what you describe, I'd stay away from the 24-70 f/2.8. Yes it's a great performer. It's also too large and too heavy (esp. if you come from smallish primes!). Plus, for landscapes there is really no advantage, as the majority of work is stopped down to f/8 or f/11 - so you're spending a lot of money extra, carry a lot of extra weight for an extra stop of light you won't use much....​
    Wouter, the problem here is that the OP isn't strictly a landscape shooter, but also wants to do events--at which the 24-70 excels. i consider the 24-120/4 just too slow and consumer-built for serious event work; the 24-85 VR is probably a more reasonable choice for a landscapist, but is also far too slow for event work.
    i dont really think the 24-70 is overrated, just very expensive and very big/bulky. its very dependable as long as you have realistic expectations and though the price/performance ratio is tilted more toward price, it's still the highest-performing lens in its class, and a real workhorse for demanding applications.
    the price is high enough, however, that its worth considering whether that money would be better spent elsewhere. for example, for less than the cost of the 24-70, the OP could get a tamron 28-75 or nikon 24-85 VR for landscape use and also upgrade to the sigma 35/1.4 which is a fantastic lens, much lighter than the 24-70, optically better, with a faster aperture, fast AF and is equally suited for landscape and event shooting. it's just not as versatile as the 24-70 and will limit you to one focal length. a 35/85 combo on FX is very workable as a walkaround solution IMO, but you have to be ok with frequent lens swapping, which isnt always possible during a fast-moving event.
    besides price, the biggest issue with the 24-70 for the OP is that, while optically, it's good enough to use as a landscape lens, it's super heavy and a pain to lug around. however, the OP a) also wants to use it for events and b) has a specific need for weather-sealing. that sort of leaves out all other competitors, except the (discontinued) 28-70, which is also big and bulky. in the end, the 24-70's 'holy trinity' tag is at least somewhat justified, and its worth noting that no lens comes without some form of compromise.
    00cNKt-545440684.jpg
     
  13. Eric, a non-professional occassional event shooter for friends - with the main focus on landscapes. Now, I also shoot events non professionally for friends on occassions - D700, 24-120VR and SB700, and it works absolutly fine for that. Sure, it would not be my choice if it was my job - it does not work fine enough for that. But for occassional work, it really can do it just fine.

    As for the hyping, I meant the "Holy Trinity" nickname is hyped. The lenses are great, but these seeming adoration as if they're the 3 must-have cornerstones of serious photography is in my view overly simplistic and disregarding specific needs. If I were the OP (and, I was - have been in the same situation), I would strike the 24-70 from the list, even if it's the best lens on that list. As each and every lens, it is a compromise, and given the OPs wants and needs, I tend to think it hits the wrong compromise. Obviously we do not have to agree on that, though.
     
  14. Wouter, i was just reading reviews on the 24-120/4, since it has a rebate. it just seems way too compromised in terms of performance for me to consider it. if you look at the photozone ratings, it's pretty bad on the borders and edges past 50mm, even when stopped down to f/8. so over half of its range is merely adequate (o_O), which is far from the corner-to-corner sharpness that landscape shooters need. since this is not exactly an inexpensive lens--it's more than $1000, even with a rebate--that seems like a poor investment. for events, flash is not always usable, so having constant 2.8 is obviously a plus. for those reasons, i couldnt really recommend the 24-120/4 as a go-to lens either for events or landscapes; it's more like a convenience lens with a decent range.
    I would strike the 24-70 from the list, even if it's the best lens on that list.​
    is that really the advice you want to give? the 24-70's pros and cons have been outlined here in detail, but it's still the best choice for what the OP wants to do.
     
  15. Just a little tidbit for those who think the 24-120 is, errr, inferior. I attended a lecture by Steve McCurry here in London about a year ago, and during the Q&A afterwards, he caused audible gasps in the audience when someone asked him what kit he carried around. He cheerfully replied that he was shooting by far most of his photos with the 24-120. He said, basically, "It's fast enough for daylight work, it's really sharp, it's got all my favourite focal lengths, and it keeps me from having to carry around a bunch of extra junk."
    Further proof that if you know what to do with your kit, you really don't *have* to obsess over having "the best" gear out there.
     
  16. When Steve McCurry asks his gear to look sharp, the gear says "yes sir!"
    When Steve McCurry needs more light, god turns up the sun.
    I think there could be a series of these...
     
  17. It's fast enough for daylight work
    um, just about any lens is fast enough for daylight work. lol.
     
  18. Eric, for some of us, the cons of a f/2.8 zoom (price, weight, size and limited zoomrange) do not outweigh its advantages. And my advice to the OP is to consider those downsides, and consider the alternatives. You do not have to agree, but that doesn't make whatever I said wrong.
    but it's still the best choice for what the OP wants to do.​
    No, it is in your opinion. And your opinion is just an opinion, like mine is. Now, I repeat, you do not have to agree with it.
    For what it's worth, instead of lens tests, I do own and use the 24-120VR. In the real world, it works remarkably well and all those optical problems found versus testcharts do not pose too much of a real problem. VR works nicely too. It's a tad pricey, but all in all a very good compromise. Again, an opinion (formed after using the lens, though), so you do not have to agree.
    00cNOg-545447684.jpg
     
  19. for some of us, the cons of a f/2.8 zoom (price, weight, size and limited zoomrange) do not outweigh its advantages​
    besides the 24-70, the 28-75 and 28-70 have also been recommended. the 28-75 is around $500 new and super light, the 28-70 around $1000 or $1100 if you can find used one, while you can get a used 24-70 for $1500. therefore, price isnt necessarily a limiting factor and neither is weight, and as i indicated before, the 28-75 is good as a multipurpose lens and better for events than anything slower.i dont think you can do better in an FX standard zoom for price/performance (although i prefer the 24-70)
    all those optical problems found versus testcharts do not pose too much of a real problem.​
    are you saying photozone is completely wrong and the 24-120 does indeed have acceptable corners?
    wouter, i fail to see how that shot you posted makes a good case for the 24-120; there's no people in it, so we can't tell how it would do as an event lens, and no foreground subject so sharpness is impossible to judge. and, those corners dont look all that sharp for landscape, even if they were properly exposed and you provided 100% crops. what, exactly, are we supposed to be looking at here? for $1000 on sale, i would get something else other than the 24-120. now if that extra range matters to you or you mainly shoot w/primes and just need an occasional zoom w/ VR, ok. but you can spend $300 on a 28-105 which does the same thing, except better, except without VR.
     
  20. Eric, how did your shot made a good case for the 24-70 for somebody who wants to shoot landscapes?
    Could you just try to accept that there are multiple views on this matter, rather than continue to insist on your opinion? I did not say at any point you are wrong, we've just got different opinions. So why can't you accept to disagree and stop insisting? Your opinion is not better or worse than mine, just different - and there is nothing wrong with that. The OP can choose for himself which view is most applicable to what he wants to achieve.
     
  21. um, just about any lens is fast enough for daylight work. lol.​
    True. But coming from a film background as I do, and considering the excellent high-ISO results obtainable from today's DSLRs, I'd consider almost any work with a sharp F4 lens with image stabilisation to be "daylight work." :)
     
  22. how did your shot made a good case for the 24-70 for somebody who wants to shoot landscapes?​
    Wouter, i'm starting to feel like ego is clouding your judgment here. i asked about what your shot was supposed to be showing because it didnt seem to illustrate the strength of the 24-120/4 for landscape, as far as i could tell. take a step back and look at what you're saying from an objective standpoint. You're recommending a not particularly fast, fairly expensive, lens with documented corner issues as a preferred solution for both landscape and events. no way would this be the first choice for either application, so it can only be recommended as a compromise on both fronts.
    the 24-70, OTOH, does not have adequate to mediocre corners throughout half of its range. its photozone analysis confirms that it's nikon's best standard zoom, capable of edge to edge sharpness from 5.6 onward, and is actually better at the long end than the wide end. So there's no question of the 24-70's performance as either a landscape or event lens. That's why it's as highly-regarded as it is.
    The issues with the 24-70 as noted are price and weight. Either those are things the OP is willing to accept and work around, or they are dealbreakers. That's a choice only the OP can make. if the 24-70 is a no go, there are many alternatives, not just the 24-120. the tamron 24-70 VC USM, for example, which adds stabilization and is on a par with the nikon 24-70 optically. i can respect your opinion that you think the 24-120 is good enough to get the job done, but i personally would be more convinced had you shown something indicative of corner performance. if i'm spending $1000+ on glass, i want something better than adequate. you are free to disagree.
     
  23. Wouter, i was just reading reviews on the 24-120/4, since it has a rebate. it just seems way too compromised in terms of performance for me to consider it. if you look at the photozone ratings, it's pretty bad on the borders and edges past 50mm, even when stopped down to f/8.​

    I had a 24-120 f/4 from late-2012 to mid-2013. The range is perfect, but that distortion was nasty at every focal length except 35mm, and the sharpness was pretty bad in the corners at the extreme ends. The center (out to about DX-crop) was amazing. I ditched it and ended up getting a 24-70 for event stuff, and a 24-85 dirt cheap on the auction site for travel (the 24-85 is just as good as the 24-120 from a IQ standpoint). Never been happier…the 24-120 is actually a pretty heavy lens…and for the weight and cost, I'd rather be carrying a 24-70. The range can't be beat though.
     
  24. Eric, apparently agreeing to disagree is a concept you don't particulary get, nor being able to accept that there are multiple answers to the question asked, and that the OP has the freedom to choose between these various options. In previous answers, I offered more options than just the 24-120 f/4, but you managed to read selectively and sloppy.
    But apparently, that's my ego getting in the way. These forums sure aren't as nice as they used to be, but I'll take a wild guess that's my problem too.
     
  25. Odd that the Tamron 24-70 VC has only come up once. From all I've read, it's very good optically (seem to recall the a comparison on lensrental.com revealed it to be better than Nikon's 24-70 but not as good as Canon's). It's quite pricey though - but still some $5-600 cheaper than the Nikon; it costs the same as the Nikon 24-120/4 (without the current $300 rebate that is).
     
  26. When Steve McCurry wants the Sun turned up; Photoshop asks "How high?".
     
  27. Wouter, in your defense/advocacy of the 24-120,somehow you managed to avoid answering this pertinent question:
    are you saying photozone is completely wrong and the 24-120 does indeed[​IMG] have acceptable corners?​
    umbrage and ego aside, let's look at this objectively: we can't tell corner performance or sharpness from the shot you posted, which, to be completely honest, could have been taken with a point and shoot. what, specifically, about the 24-120 makes it a better lens than the 24-70 for the OP's intended purposes, besides longer length? the 24-120 is less sharp, has worse corners, and more distortion. so while the f/4 may be workable for events, the corner performance would be a concern for serious landscape use. granted, it's lighter, but also has less weather-sealing. mind you that the 24-70 is indeed a heavy beast, and one which you'll feel after even an hour of walking around. but it's also nikon's best standard zoom, and versatile enough to deliver impressive results in challenging situations, indoors and out. the same cannot be said of the 24-120/4, which seems to be a compromised lens in just about every critical area.
    Odd that the Tamron 24-70 VC has only come up once.​
    IIRC, the tamron 24-70 VC outscored the nikon by one point on DxO Mark.so optical quality seems to be there. apparently the lens also has some weather-sealing, although i haven't seen any field reports which indicate how good it is under extreme conditions. the tamron is mainly plastic, however, while the nikon is mostly metal, so that might explain some of the price differential.
     
  28. Hey Eric and Wouter (and many others), thank you both for very good inputs and it sounds like some of the arguments that you two are having is something that I had with my inner self not too long ago.
    I will let you know this though... 24-120 was another lens that I really thought about. It is very nice lens for its price and for what it can do. (may be not as much as 24-70 in some cases including corner to corner and sharpness at certain focal length) But this price point, I guess I rather pay extra $300 for 24-70mm...
    I am at a point where I would get 24-70 or go quite cheaper.
    What I am surprised at is... nikon 24-85mm hasnt mentioned yet... I guess compared to Tamron, fixed 2.8 plus extra 5mm says it all
     
  29. we can't tell corner performance or sharpness from the shot you posted, which, to be completely honest, could have been taken with a point and shoot​
    On that note - could you please give a brief explanation how the shot you posted shows the strengths of the 24-70? And while you're at it - why it needed some $8000 worth of equipment to be created?
    When comparing the photozone results for the 24-70 and 24-120 one needs to keep in mind that only one sample of each lens has been tested - and aside from the corner performance wide open, results are often within 10% of each other (in the range of common focal lengths); since we don't know where in the sample-to-sample variation each lens is situated, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. We could be looking at an above average performing 24-70 and an below average performing 24-120 - in which case it isn't inconceivable that a better copy of the 24-120 would perform as well as the 24-70. Of course, this could also be an above average performing 24-120 and a below-average 24-70 and photozone results would be close to a "best case" scenario.
    From what I've read so far about the new Sigma 24-105/4 then it isn't the "silver bullet" either and performs about the same as Nikon's 24-120 and Canon's 24-105.
    For landscape photography, there are a few candidates that could be considered instead of the 24-70; once indoor event comes into play, the cards are stacked in favor of the 24-70.
    I would rather get the lens that will do it right​
    That's what I thought I did when I purchased the 17-55/2.8 DX - and it turned out that the 16-35/4 VR suited me a lot better. "Doing it right" proved to be quite expensive. I am sure glad that I am not looking for any FX mid-range zoom at this point; I wouldn't know which one to pick and would probably go for "cheap" with the 24-85 VR. As it is, the 16-85 on a D300 will do just fine - even though it's far from an ideal lens for me.
     
  30. Eric, I am a completely fool for responding once more, apparently you really are not getting what I've said three times already. We do not have to agree. Furthermore, you do not have to convince me or the OP that what you say is right, and what I say is wrong. We both offer a view on what the OP could do, and both views have their merits.
    So, really, start reading a bit better, quiting my own first post:
    The 24-120VR is not as nice a landscape lens as my 16-85VR (DX) was, but it is a really fine lens. Too expensive, though, and now I would probably opt for the 24-85VR instead.... If you really really want a f/2.8 lens: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Maybe not as great as some of the others, but a lot nicer and the wallet, and size/weight again.​
    You managed to miss that completely, and you keep going on about the 24-120VR being a bad lens. I'm not advocating it, but to an extend yes, I will defend this lens. Because unlike you, I actually used it and I know it's far from being bad, a reputation mostly given to this lens by people like you who never used it. I actually shot quite a lot of landscapes with it, and I know for me it works out fine as it forms the right compomise for my needs. The corners apparently, then, are acceptable to me. But sure, I should value photozone over my own experiences?
    My image that I also could have shot with my smartphone, sure, it doesn't make much of a point (well, it does make a point for having VR, actually, but that doesn't save it from mediocrity). But guess, what, neither does your image (that I also could have shot with my smartphone) make much of a point. It's pretty arrogant to talk down to me about that inclusion of an image.
    So, stop the lecturing. Try to get into your brain that maybe some problems have more than 1 possible answer, and your answer isn't the only right one. I never said you were wrong, if you would care to read carefully. Is my ego clouding my judgement? I actually looked into a mirror considering that. I severly doubt whether you did the same.
     
  31. What is the point arguing about a 24-120 f4. The questioner probably has at least as good in the 18-70 for its range. I can tell whose "ego" is really involved here.
    The questioner is asking an unanswerable, the matter of value. I can only suggest that if he is so concerned, he carefully buy used to limit his loss if he wants to pass it on.
     
  32. could you please give a brief explanation how the shot you posted shows the strengths of the 24-70? And while you're at it - why it needed some $8000 worth of equipment to be created?​
    well, at least my shot is sharp and has detail in it. also, that combo had no problem tracking moving subjects. sure i could have gotten the same shot with my d300s/17-50 OS, since i was using flash. doubtless the same shot could probably also have been captured with a 24-120 VR at f/4.
    but i never said $8000 worth of equipment was necessary to do event photography (although, to be honest, in low-light situations when i need to jack the ISO way up and shoot wide open, that combo has gotten shots that wouldnt have been possible with slower zooms. but this thread isn't about the D3s, which only cost $5000 new, btw-- thanks for adding another $1300 to the value, maybe i can mention this comment as a defense against depreciation). what i did say was that the 24-70 AF-S is a great event lens that's also sharp enough in the corners for landscape use.
    aside from the corner performance wide open, results are often within 10% of each other (in the range of common focal lengths)​
    in marketing and PR, these would be referred to as 'weasel words' -- technically somewhat true, but upon further examination kind of misleading. do we assess a 24-120 lens simply by its performance up to 70mm? or do we look at its performance across its entire zoom range? under Dieter's criteria, we can only asses the 24-120 from 5.6 onward, since we're discounting corners at f/4. See the problems there? also, the 24-120 isn't tested at 70mm, but we can see image quality really starts to fall off by 85mm and is poor at 120mm. so therefore, if we adjust the above statement to say, the 24-120 isn't so bad as long as you don't shoot wide open and dont shoot at the long end, we might have a more honest assessment.
    For landscape photography, there are a few candidates that could be considered instead of the 24-70; once indoor event comes into play, the cards are stacked in favor of the 24-70.​
    that's essentially the point i've been trying to make.
    The corners apparently, then, are acceptable to me. But sure, I should value photozone over my own experiences?​
    well, i guess we'll just have to take your word for it, since your shot doesnt allow us to judge corner performance. i was just wondering what you wanted the take-away to be from your image: what are we supposed to be looking at, there? i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had better examples of 24-120 performance but chose not to share.
    neither does your image (that I also could have shot with my smartphone) make much of a point. It's pretty arrogant to talk down to me about that inclusion of an image.​
    oh, you have a smartphone that tracks moving action and allows you to set fast shutter speeds? why do you need a DSLR, then?
     
  33. well, at least my shot is sharp and has detail in it​
    Not on my screen it isn't.
    thanks for adding another $1300 to the value​
    OK, so it's "only" $6700 then. Or almost $7000 with the SB-600 included.
    these would be referred to as 'weasel words'​
    Weren't meant to be - I was trying to preempt the comment that the 24-70 "kinda sucks" from 71 to 120mm. And it is quite obvious that the 24-120 won't do well at f/2.8.
    the 24-120 isn't so bad as long as you don't shoot wide open​
    A trait it shares with the 24-70. And with many other lenses. Best performance is usually stopped down two stops. But you completely missed the point - we are arguing about performance of two lenses of which someone tested exactly one copy each at one distance and with one camera and all we can learn from that is that for those two samples and conditions, the 24-70 copy performs better than the 24-120 copy. Generalizing the result means we could be on very shaky footing. At least for some lenses, the sample variation is larger than the difference to the results from another lens - so depending on the "luck of the draw" someone might measure the exact opposite of the photozone results and both results would be correct.
     

Share This Page