Which Nikon Lens? (PART 2)

[michael_dominic]

Thank you everyone for all the answers in part one of this thread. It was a lot to digest.

 

I went to B&H today at lunch time and drooled, I mean looked at the F100 and a variety of

different lenses. I asked some questions and heres what I'm thinking.

 

The camera that I'm going to get is the F100, period. I was going to bite the bullet and buy

the 28-70mm AFS ED... Then I saw it...IT'S HUGH! I can't walk around all the time with

that thing.

 

So... It's between the 24-85mm 2.8-4D and the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED. I'm leaning

towards the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED. I hear the quality is better, focusing is faster and it's

nice and compact. Plus it's got that ED thing that I'm not entirely sure what it is, but it gets

me oddly excited.

 

Thoughts?

[ShunCheung]

Well, since B&H is now closed until May 1, you have another week to think about it.

 

I have both the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and the 24-85 AF-S G. The latter is a decent lens and is very affordable. IMO it is likely that you'll find it to be too slow under dim conditions, but why don't you start with it and see whether you can live with it or not. Worst comes to worst, you won't lose all that much since it is around $300 to begin with.

[michael_dominic]

Another week to obsess you mean...lol. What Photo places won't be closed in NYC over

passover?

[scotth]

I'm not really sure what the difference between this thread and part 1, but here goes:</p>

 

<a href "http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system"> Read this </a> and then buy the <a href "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=247091&is=USA"> 50mm 1.8D, </a> it's only $90. It was one of my favorite lenses for my N90s (as a normal lens). And now it's one of my lenses (as a portrait lens) for my D70. Considering you were willing to spend over $2000 for the body and one lens (but it was too big), if you eventually get a wide zoom lens and never use the 50mm again, it is irrelevant in terms of money. </p>

 

If you're looking for a recommendation to put a cheap consumer zoom on an expensive pro body, I don't think you're going to get it. I'd rather have a 28-70mm AFS ED on an N55 than a 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED on an F100. </p>

[eric friedemann]

As Shun intimates, the 24-85mm AFSG lens is a good buy for the money. It is relatively compact, is good optically and is fine for shooting outdoors in moderate daylight. After you shoot with the 24-85mm, if you develop a taste for a certain focal length and need something faster, you could get a smaller fixed focal length lens.

 

 

The 28-70mm f/2.8 is IMHO the best full-frame-- as opposed to smaller-sensor DSLR-- event-shooting lens made. It is big and heavy, but with the speed and focal length range, particularly if you are shooting flash, it is well worth doing a few extra pushups to use the 28-70mm AFS lens for weddings. It is not a lens I'd want to lug around all day if I were on vacation and street-shooting.

[ShunCheung]

At a certain point, you simply have to stop listening to all the suggestions (and BS) in this forum and get a body and some lenses. Try them and see whether it works for you or not. Even though it doesn't work out, you'll have a better idea what is missing and what you really need. I think you have already gotten as much as you will ever get from this forum on this very topic.

[michael_dominic]

I guess the difference between the treads is I've narrowed it down and I'm asking what do

you all think of the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED. Is it a worthy choice?

 

My Nikon FA broke 2 weeks ago. I had a 24 2.8 on it and I never used my 50mm. I carry a

camera everywhere I go. I shoot street stuff and don't have time to change between

primes, I want more variety than just a 24mm. The stuff that I do is on my photoblog,

www.frankieboots.net.

[grant_bridenbaugh]

I'm with Shun. Get the one you're leaning toward. You've seen 'em, played with 'em, and obviously have at least an idea of what you want, so who am I to talk you out of it? :-)

 

If you find you like it, and are satisfied with the shots you get, great! (Optically, you'll likely find it's pretty good, despite the fact that some people talk about it like some free prize at the bottom of a Trix box.)

 

If you find yourself wanting better low-light ability, or feel you're lacking sharpness, you can change to whatever will alleviate that problem (and sell the zoom for a good percentage of what you paid for it), be it a faster zoom or a prime or three. As you've seen, though, there will be a tradeoff.

 

Speed. Light weight. Ability to zoom. Pick which two matter most, because if all three came together, we'd all own one and there'd be no need for this discussion. :-)

 

Bottom line - the best rig is the one you actually use. The camera you take out with you because it's manageable and you enjoy using it, will get you lots better pictures than the one that sits in your closet because it's too unwieldy or you're bored with it.

[arnulfo_rosas]

Why don't you try either: a) 24/2.8 + 50/2.8 (+-$250 used), b) 35-70mm 2.8 AFD (+-$250 used)or c) 35/2 + 85/1.8 (+-370 used). Any of them would be much cheaper than the 28-70 2.8 yielding the same high quality (or better!). In case you prefer a 24-85 zoom, my vote goes to the ED glass (...although I've heard this zoom is not any fantastic at 24 and 85, being very good at...35-70, which in turns takes you to the 35-70 2.8!...)

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"I guess the difference between the treads is I've narrowed it down and I'm asking what do you all think of the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED. Is it a worthy choice?"</i><P>

Yes. Despite what some of the naysayers have said, it is not a "cheap" consumer zoom. Yes it is inexpensive, and yes it is a consumer zoom, but it's not cheap.<P>

I recently purchased one of these. I am currently using it on an F4 in P and S modes. I will be using it on my newly purchased F100 when it arrives. I have a full set of Nikkor primes. I see nothing wrong with hanging this lens on any Nikon body, pro or otherwise. For a $350 lens it is very well made, nicely finished, and doesn't look the least bit cheap. AF is fast and silent, even on my antique F4. If you are going to shoot architecture, there is noticeable distortion at both ends of the zoom. Since I don't take pictures of boxes, this doesn't matter to me. It isn't noticeable in most shots. My first impressions are that it takes very nice photos. Would the 28~70/2.8 be better? Probably so, but at nearly 5 times the cost it had better be. Is it better than the 24-85mm 2.8-4D? I don't know as I have never tried that lens. But the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED is definitely smaller, just as well made, and much faster focusing. There is very little "speed" to be gained by the 2.8-4D, as it is only half a stop faster on either end and I recall reading that it jumps to f/4 around 50mm or so.<P>

You can see an impartial review of both lenses from a respected scientist and photographer (who has actually used both) here:<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS24-85G">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS24-85G</a><br>

and here:<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-85f2.8">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-85f2.8</a><P>

If you are looking for a nice compact fast focusing zoom, IMHO there is nothing wrong with the AF-S 24~85G. Try it out the next time you go to B&H.<P>

Mike

[greg s]

"Is it better than the 24-85mm 2.8-4D?"

 

That's what I have, and am generally happy with it... but plan to get a prime for absolute sharpness. That said, the newer AF-S is at least as sharp as the 2.8 and many consider it to be sharper. I've seen some very nice shots taken with it. If it were my choice, I'd go with the AF-S. FWIW, :) Greg

[michael_dominic]

The 28-70mm AFS is out of the question. It's just too big. I carry a camera all the time,

every where I go. I need reasonably sized gear.

 

Now what's the deal with 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED not having an aperture ring? ...How do

you set the aperture on the fly, or at all? Sorry I'm used to my manual FA

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>How do you set the aperture on the fly, or at all?</i><P>

With either the main command dial and your thumb or the sub-command dial and your fingertip.

[ShunCheung]

The 24-85mm AF-S is a G lens, which means it has no aperture ring as all new Nikon lenses and pretty much all 3rd-party lenses are in these days. On the F100, you control aperture via the sub-command dial, which is right below the shutter release on the front of the camera. You control it either with you right index or middle finger.

 

Essentially G lenses cannot be used on old manual bodies such as the FA.

[steve_muntz]

Arrgh - just posted in your "part I". Get the zoom for normal use but it won't help you (not even the f2.8) in low light work. Spend the $90 on the 50 f1.8. Really.

 

I don't know if there's an official definition of low light, but I'm talking about shooting inside of a building, outside at dusk or after dark in urban areas - without flash.

 

I find that adjusting the aperture on the camera body is faster and easier (plus you can set up the camera for 1/2 or 1/3 stops).

[hugh_crawford1]

"Then I saw it...IT'S HUGH! I can't walk around all the time with that thing"

 

Excuse me?

 

"What Photo places won't be closed in NYC over passover?"

 

Calumet, J&R, Photocare...

[richard_knapp]

I think you'll be happier with top quality, fast glass. A good alternative to the AF 28-70 is the older 35-70 2.8. It's a wonderful general photography lens, and will develop your skills in normal range focal lenghts.

 

(The Nikon 20mm prime would be a logical way to expand upon this lens for the wide range.)

 

I have this great 35-70 lens, and relative to the 28-70, it's medium weight. It balance nicely with the F100. There's a lot of cheap second hand ones around, and their built like a tank

 

It gets rave reviews universally -- see thread here.

[superia400_junkie]

I love my 50mm f/1.4 and wouldn't give it up for anything. I love my prime, and plan to get the 85mm next month. I'll probably spring for the 1.4 because I love it that much.

 

You can keep the f/2.8 zooms. Nothing extra to fiddle with, you just zoom with your feet, or change lenses.

 

Get the 1.8 primes if you are on a budget. I saw a comparison of the 50's and it was clear that the 1.4 was the slightly better lense. The test shots were at night and the lights were round on the 1.4 and geometric shaped with the 1.8

 

It was worth an extra $150 to me. As for the 85? Well I haven't reached that expensive choice just yet.

[cálico]

I had initially suggested that you try the 35-70mm f/2.8D, which is not a huge, bulky or heavy lens; it's a push-pull type action lens, which comes in handy when you're on the go. Also, for a really great lens for low lighting conditions, try the 50mm F/1.8D (or if you can stretch it, get the F/1.4D). Call the used camera departments of several camera shops and ask if have these lenses in at least 8+ condition... you'll save a few dollars for other "toys."

 

Good luck and best wishes.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Ok. Maybe heresy, but for street shooting, get two smaller bodies and mount two (faster, if possible) prime lenses. You have a nice 24, so consider a fast 50 or even an 85, if you like.

 

Buy a pair of minty used FE2's from KEH. Then consider a pair of primes, like your 24 and a 50/1.4 AIS or a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or 85/2 (less expensive).

 

Nothing wrong with zooms (I just bought a wide one myself for my D70), but I find in "street" I like to "think" in a focal length or two or maybe three. I had a wonderful morning a month or so ago with 2 Leicas and an FM3a wielding a 28/2, 50/1.5 (on the Leicas) and 105/2.5 (on the FM3a). Loaded them all with HP5+ rated at E.I. 800 for a cloudy day and some open stalls (it was an open air fish market) and went to town. Shooting felt great, just right.

 

Anywho, F100 is a great camera, and I'm sure you'll be happy with your zoom, but you'll be wanting some faster glass in urban shadows or toward the ends of daylight. Like others, I strongly urge you to toss an inexpensive 50/1.8 in the bag. It will fit in a jacket pocket, and you'll be glad it's there when you need it. When I got my first Nikon body last year, I snagged a 50/1.8 AFD and shot it exclusively for 2-3 months straight. Learned alot, and it's still probably my favorite general purpose focal length as it helps me with subject isolation. I use a 35/2 on my D70 all the time as it approximates a 50mm prime.

 

Oh, and consider a nice flash to go with that zoom (not for street, unless you're doing a Weegee thing). I bought an SB800, and I love it. Gives fantastic results.

 

Best of luck.

 

Scott

[RaymondC]

I am sorta on the same boat. The 24-85 AFS is nice but there is no aperture ring. Not sure if I would get a mechanical body in the future.

 

I have a D70 which is made more difficult with its 1.5x. I also don't want to get two lenses, the other being a 18-70 DX.

 

I guess one other lens I could get instead is the 28-105 which does indeed have aperture ring (if I get a mechanical body) but I do feel left out as its not a AFS.

 

Basically if you are not worried with the mechanical body, the 24-85 is a good lens. I have a 50 f/1.8 lens, I hav taken this indoors with lights on, on my D70 with ISO 800 I can get 1/60. So yeah the f. 2.8 lens wouldn't help that much unless you really need the lens as a zoom and lower light ie.. PJ stuff. Of course that expensive lens is somewhat better optically, some pple will get that lens even if it is bigger and heavier...

 

So for your question, I say the 24-85 try it out. Pair it with a non zoom like a 50, 35 or 85.

[harry_sinniah]

The F100 is a fantastic camera with the 28-70 AFS. I was in the Canon camp till I just had a bad trip when many of my photos were ruined (not because of the ELAN IIE but the 3rd party lense).

 

I switched to the F100 when it was just release bought it from a dealer on ebay for 800US$, it sat for a while when i was using borrowed lenses from a friend before I could afford the 28-70, yes the pain was there for a long time but slowly as the pictures come back you realize that its all worth it.

 

Also I now splurged on 2 more 2.8 (18-35 & 70-200), that pain will probabily never go away for a life time.... Now they want us to go digital....

 

It never ends isn't it. My suggestion spend money on quality glass you never loose you investment.

[ShunCheung]

Guys, Michael Dominic has made it very clear that (1) He already has a 50mm lens that he doesn't use and (2) The 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is way too heavy for him. So please do not keep insisting on the options he has rejected already. (Personally, I have the 28-70 AF-S myself and that would have been my choice for his type of work on a film body. I go hiking with my 500mm/f4 and tripod so that you are not going to get any sympathy on weight complaints, but only Michael's opinion counts in this thread.)

 

Michael, do you still need this thread? As far as I can tell, it is pretty much a repeat of the various options already in your first thread. Again, if I were you, just get the 24-85 AF-S G and try it out. You already know its pros and cons. If it happens to work out for you, great. If not, you'll know how to improve on it.

[michael_dominic]

This thread is still helpful. I think I'm going to start with the 24-85 AF G ED and a 50 1.4,

but I change my mind every few hours.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>

<I>Michael Dominic , apr 23, 2005; 11:56 p.m.</I>

<br>

This thread is still helpful. I think I'm going to start with the 24-85 AF G ED and a 50 1.4, but I change my mind every few hours.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's what I get for posting my response (to your earlier thread) before reading all the more recent posts. Still, I think my fundamental point remains: You can have "fast"; you can have "affordable"; you can have "Nikkor"... you just have to pick any TWO. And especially given your later comments, I now more strongly suggest you check out that Sigma I mentioned, before making the jump. It comes as close as anything I'm aware of to fulfilling <B><I>all</I></B> your stated needs; and in particular, it is significantly faster (a full stop, on average) than the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S.

<br>

<br>