Which standard zoom for D850?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jorish, Mar 2, 2019.

  1. You've only got to look here to think, maybe, this lens was designed (It wasn't!) for DX....:(

    Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-120 mm f/4G ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

    It's centre and DX area are good/OK, but the FX, ie edges, are poor to say the least.

    You'd be far better off getting the old (non VR) 24-70mm 2.8 and cropping to 'reach' 120mm

    ..... and gain a stop of light.

    or the Sigma 24-105mm f4 and trim to 120mm coverage.
  2. EM1 is 16MP
  3. Mike: It's not impossible. The 24-120 isn't all that old - Nikon were still shifting the variable aperture version with the D700, so they'd got full frame by that point, but with the pipeline for producing lenses I could believe they still had a DX focus, especially on a semi-consumer lens (albeit one with a weird focal length range for DX). I maintain that the iffy corners on the 70-200 VR1 at 200mm and the edges of the frame on the Sigma 50mm HSM were because priority was given to DX performance in a world before not many cameras were FX.

    Gary: Thanks. My thought was that the pixel density on the E-M1 is about 1.16x that of a D850. A 70mm lens on a D850 will put as many pixels on the subject as the 12-60mm would on the E-M1. If you want to get the level of detail increase that you might expect going from a 16MP sensor to a 45MP sensor, obviously you need a 120mm-ish lens - but if you just want the same amount of detail in a walk-around form, you don't actually need to go to 120mm so long as you can crop a bit. (And you can always use the D850 as a DX crop camera if you want to save some storage space.) Then there's the question of whether the 120mm is really giving you 45MP of useful data at the long end. :)

    Equivalence is a can of worms, as usual. Matching an E-M1 with a 12-60mm is one thing; doing substantially better is another matter!
  4. I learned about lens delivery when I put a 70-200/4 on my D7200 and saw detail that I never saw with my 18-140. Kinda sad, as I was happy with the 18-140 until I put the 70-200 on the D7200, now I am not happy with its IQ.
    So I understand what you mean that the 24-120 may not deliver the 45MP resolution that the D850 can produce.

    But for me, a GP lens, like my m4/3 12-60, DX 18-140 or the FX 24-120, just has to be "good enough."
    If I want quality, I pull out the pro lens, with a smaller zoom range, or a prime.

    Super zooms, with few exceptions, sacrifice IQ for zoom range. Most of the really GOOD/Pro zooms are still down at the 3:1 range. And Sigma had to go down to 2:1 for their DX format f/1.8 zooms.
    The only exception that I know of is the Olympus m4/3 12-100/4 at 5:1.

    The newer EM1-mk2 has a 20MP m4/3 sensor.
    Andrew Garrard likes this.
  5. Until you're moved to buy something else, because money is burning a hole in your pocket, I think you have a "walkaround" lens with the 35/1.8. That's exactly what I was looking for and have been happy with its IQ. There are better lenses, there are more flexible lenses, but the 35mm format is pretty hard to beat for family, street, utility. And you have the 70-200. So, if I were looking at another lens to compliment those 2, I think the 85 or the 105 or the 135, probably leaning to the 85 or 105 and of those 2 the 105. And if a zoom is what you'd want the 16-35. There are no bad choices in any of those.

    And I have to agree with you re the menu structure on the Sony RX, not intuitive for me at all. It is so small that it is hard to hold still, but 20mp and a Zeiss lens and Sony quality is a fine combo.
  6. The 28-300 blew me away when I first bought it and used it on my D800E. It is not the lightest lens around, but I have easily carried it for several hours of mountain hiking. The resolution on my copy was superb.
  7. On a D800? Interesting to hear, Landrum - I've never handled one, but the reviews I've seen have very much been of the form "better than you'd expect, but..." That said, decent image processing can pull a lot of detail out of even lenses with quite iffy optics (which may or may not be so in this case).
  8. It's easy to be snide about a lens that we don't own (although obviously there's a reason we don't own it - at least, I assume Mike doesn't have one). On a D700, I was pleasantly surprised by my 28-200, at least stopped down a little - but a D700 is a very easy target. I was then disappointed the moment it sat on a D800, because the CA was extremely intrusive, and traded it. More recently having thrown DxO at some of my old D700 images, the resulting sharpness is actually pretty good.

    Image processing isn't entirely a substitute for optics - any sharpening increases noise and adds outlining to bokeh, for a start. It's absolutely worth knowing how a lens performs under default processing. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the capabilities of a borderline performer if the flexibility is needed - and as I said, the reviews have generally said "pretty good, considering". Plus there's such a thing as sample variation, so I'm inclined to say that if Landrum is happy, especially for mountain hiking (where I assume 300mm might come in handy for the odd bird), I'm not going to argue - and at some point the atmosphere is going to get in the way more than any optics. Besides, if we pick holes in the lenses that people own, they'll start being unhappy with them, and I don't really like costing other people money by infecting them with NAS (which is why I don't rant about LoCA even more than I already do).

    Not to imply that the 28-300 will produce superior results to a 24-120 f/4 (although it might outdo the variable aperture version), but you're choosing your compromise with any option here. Unless you know you want the extra reach I'd still take the 24-120 over the 28-300, but it's not a given. For some reason I also thought the 28-300 was more expensive than it appears to be - although I may have been comparing with the dirt-cheap 28-200 and not allowing for how overpriced I believe the 24-120 f/4 to be.
    steve_g|2 and mike_halliwell like this.
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The 28-300mm superzoom was ok on the D700, but back in 2010, I used it on the 16MP DX D7000, it is just not sharp at 300mm. Haven’t used it much since then.
  10. The 'newer' AF 35-135mm 3.5/4.5 wasn't bad on film...or my D700.

    However, I've never tried it on my D850.

Share This Page