leslie_cheung Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 >>>they could have made a faster 12-24, but you wouldn't be able to use such lenses on any future (and past) full-frame body, which is the case of Canon EF-S<<< Maybe I'm not getting it Shun but you can't use the 17-55mm f2.8 either on FF. What's the big deal? Like you said many times before, dx will like be around for a long time so why won't nikon make a 12-24 f2.8 or a coupla of wide dx primes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 "why won't nikon make a 12-24 f2.8" If they do, and it's 3X the price of the f4, how many will buy it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The 12-24 DX and 17-55 DX do work on FF bodies, but they will produce dark corners (and edges) at some focal lengths and apertures. But you can make images with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwcombs Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I have a friend (not me) who has culled his bag down to the following lenses (for DSLR): 12-24mm f/4, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8, 18-70mm kit (walk around), and 17-55mm f/2.8 (on my, er, my friend's wish list) Shooting styles have not required any other lenses. I, er, my friend is quite happy. And you, er your friend's, list is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 >>>If they do, and it's 3X the price of the f4, how many will buy it?<<< How did you come up with that price point? The 17-35mm 2.8 sells for about ~$1200, the 17-55 2.8 goes for ~$1300...why would a 12-24mm 2.8 be 3x the price of the 12-24mm f4 which is around $1000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Leslie, the 300mm/f2.8 is in the $4000 range and the 300mm/f4 is about $1000. So it is entirely possible that 1 extra stop would cost you 4x in price. <P> If Nikon could have made a 12-24mm/f2.8 AF-S DX around $1500 with reasonable performance at f2.8, IMO they would have done it from the beginning. I am afraid that regardless of price, quality at wide open is the issue here for such a super wide. <P> Incidentally, Thom Hogan made an interesting comment on Canon EF-S lenses today: "<I>Well, Canon goofed. EF-S was a flawed logic process in design, IMHO. That could come back to haunt Canon, actually. The vast majority of DSLR purchases are at the low-end. If you stock those people with stuff that's 100% non-compatible with the higher-end, you essentially give your competitors a free shot at competing for any move upmarket by your entry folk.</I>" <P> <A HREF="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=21759949"> forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=21759949</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 "I would pay big money for it." How much do you suppose such a lens would cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Well then, I guess I can just get a 5d and a 16-35mm 2.8 for $3000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Leslie, You're not the only one who's done that math. You can get some seriously great wide- angle stuff with the 5D... Any lens is going to go up by a factor of at least 3 when you gain a whole stop to get into the 2.8 range. Look at the 17-35 vs. the 18-35. Look at the 70 or 80 to 200 or 210 prices. Look at the 18-55 kit lens vs. the 17-55. When stuff gets real expensive on the wide end... it just adds fuel to the "Buy Canon" fire because of the comparitively cheap price of a Canon 5D plus 16-35, especially with these double-rebates. (Even Nikon-maniac Ken Rockwell is using Canon for wide shots now because of this...) Medium-priced full-frame would change everything, wouldn't it! This is a good argument for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 What's in my DSLR bag? Thanks for asking. Well here goes: Peppermint Altoids, a package of cheese crackers and a granola bar since I am hypoglycemic, a nice hand towel in case it's hot where I am working and I am perspiring, extra lens caps-batteries-Advil, small can of air, monopod, extra SD cards, biz cards, leatherman tool, small maglite, +1.5 reading glasses, SB-800,a Sony HDR-HC3 in case they want some quick video, manuals in case I forget how to. . .oh yeah, a D80. Lenses for most events (others for other jobs): 18-55mm; 50mm; 18-200mm. Yeah, I even use the kit lens. What I leave in my SUV: my arrogance, my ego, any personal problems. What I take inside in addition to my gear: a positive attitude, fun spirit, kindness, a smile, gentle honesty, a passion and gratitude for the work, friendly professionalism, and most of all, I make sure my pants are zipped up and my shoes tied. Thanks to all. This should be fun!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecarter Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Hmmm. Depends on how I feel and what I intend to shoot really. My normal walking around kit is my D70, the Nikon 18-70 D70 kit lens and a Sigma 70-210 F2.8 If I think I really need something faster than the 18-70, I have a Tamrom 28-70 F2.8 which is hard to beat, and if I think I'll also need wider (or am going to shoot landscapes and think I'll need wider than the Tamron or the Nikon kit lens) I'll add my Tokina 12-24 F4. On occasion, I'll go old school (well, as much as is possible with a D70 anyways) and just take it and a Nikon 35mm F2 or the 50mm f1.8 to see what I can find. I won't comment much on what I shoot or my level of skill is - instead, check my portfolio and that should tell you what you need to know. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_knight Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 David, My DREAM is to add the 17-55/2.8, 24/1.8, 85/1.8, and 70-200/2.8 VR. With my limited budget I am guessing a 3rd party 17-??/2.8, Sigma 30/1.8, 85/1.8, & the new 70-300 VR lens. Mean time I am sure having fun with my D50 with the 18-70 and 50/1.8 lenses. Thank you for asking. Tim Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I use several Nikon lenses on my Canon 10D (DSLR) and Elan IIe (film). Indoor swim meets and outdoor soccer - Nikon 200/2 AI, and Nikon 400/2.8 AIS on the 10D. Gymnasium sports - Nikon 50/1.4 AIS, Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4, and the 200/2, all on the 10D. Landscapes, architecture, and walkaround, Nikon 14/2.8 AF, Nikon 28/2 AIS, and the 50/1.4 on the 10D and/or film. Will likely get a nice light Nikon 180/2.8 AIS or Leica 180/3.4 APO to go with these. If I ever find a really beat up Nikon 8/2.8 and/or Nikon 16/3.5 I would consider adding those too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmw Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 As a portrait photographer, he probably isn't as interested in wide angle photography as I am. I consider the 12-24 zoom to be #1 on my list. I have a 17-55 and 70-200 also but I would sure buy some wide angle fixed focal length lenses if they were available. I'm still not a big fan of zoom lenses. For the portraitist, I would think the 85 f1.4 would be high on the list. In other words, his list is fine for him but not for me. No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now