D7000 with 24-70mm ?

[ShunCheung]

<p>D.B. Cooper, sorry, in the context of this thread, I would disagree with both of your points here.</p>

<ol>

<li>Again, for landscape photography, we are now in the era of live view. Nowadays, I use a magnified image under live view to fine tune focus manually and check the depth of field (at the stopped down, shooting aperture) among different areas inside the image. If you are using a slower lens and/or stopped down, the camera's electronics can brighten up the live view image on the back LCD. Therefore, your entire argument of a brighter traditional optical viewfinder is, unfortunately, irrelevant.</li>

<li>Fast lenses such as those 50mm/f1.4 and constant f2.8 zooms have extra elements to provide good quality wide open. Frequently those complex optical designs is a burden when you stop down. If you mainly shoot at f8, you are better off with a slower f4 lens that has a simplier optical design. We may be talking about a tiny amount of differences, but extra elements in VR lenses can negatively affect image quality in a landscape photography with tripod setting.</li>

</ol>

<p>Had we been talking about action/sports photography, the arguments would be entirely different.</p>

[richard_sheen]

<p>I would suggest you to get rid of the 35mm and 50mm primes and replace them with a 27-70 :) because thats what I'm using right now. My current setup is: D7000, 12-24, 24-70, 70-300 and 2 lenses which I rarely use. I find the 24-70 to be very useful to capture snapshots, especially in cities, but if its up to landscape then 24 would seem to be insufficient...But then, you have a 10-24 which will do the job nicely, also after acquiring an extent of knowledge in landscape photography you might gradually start to get interested in closeup shots of natural objects such as leaves or stones, because that's what happened to me, unless you become a super-wide junkie :) although I guess I'm both...</p>

<p>But if you only use it for landscape on a tripod then I guess F2.8 and 24mm for that $1900+ isn't going to be worth it, unless you shoot everything you find interesting like me, plus that you intend to upgrade to FX in the future. I would rather recommend the 17-55 F2.8 if you intend on shooting with a tripod, and have no desire to upgrade to FX, since basically its just a 24-70 F2.8 in DX format, though alot of the focal will be overlapped with the 10-24.</p>

<p>Also, I don't really think that F2.8 is a waste, considering that you would get about sufficent depth of view on a wide focal such as 17mm or 24mm, F2.8 actually makes up for shooting in low light, especially when you wish to capture motion, for example a city nightscene? Trust me, you don't wanna carry a tripod everywhere you go, especially on vacations, it kinda screws up the mood sometimes. Plus you get all the extra bokehness when you need them... ...Or just get the 24-120 F4 for the additional focal, VR and decent sharpness which is essential in landscape photography.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Francesco,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... likewise the 18-105mm..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you still have this lens? The 16-85VR isn't a massive step up optically (build quality is better, though). If you still have this 18-105, you might not need a new lens at all.<br>

______<br>

Having used the 16-85VR in a wide variety of lighting conditions, including at night, I really wonder where all these comments come from that it would not work. It just works. My primes aren't that much easier to focus in low light either (a bright viewfinder when there is no light is a black hole, regardless). Yes, action photos with this lens in low light is not going to work, but for landscapes, there really is no issue. I prefer primes too, but for landscape work, I somehow always end up with this zoom, because at f/8 it's equal or better than many of those primes (which obviously are much better at f/4 and faster).</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>As a rule, lenses that have wider max apertures out-perform cheaper lenses when stopped down to the same value (e.g. a good f/2.8 lens will almost always out-perform f/4 lenses when both are stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, and it will certainly do it at f/4).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, this is not a hard and fast rule at all. <em>in fact, it may not even be applicable, much less a rule.</em> it's just not necessarily true or accurate to say this. for one thing, nikon only has three current f/4 zoom lenses--12-24 DX, 16-35 VR and 24-120 VRII, but the 17-55 doesnt outperform the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/229-nikkor-af-s-12-24mm-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1">12-24</a> at 17mm and f/4 -- in fact it's the opposite. if you look at photozone charts, you will find that just about every lowly variable zoom lens catches up to 2.8 zooms by f/8. that's why the 18-55 is just as good for landscape apps as the 17-55.</p>

<p>in the case of the 16-85, it's <em>just as sharp as 2.8 zooms at common apertures and focal lengths</em>, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/635-nikkor16853556vr?start=1">according to photozone</a>. look at the comparison between the 17-55 and 16-85; at the widest focal length, wide open, the 16-85 at 3.5 is sharper than the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/231-nikkor-af-s-17-55mm-f28-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1">17-55</a> at 2.8. the 16-85 pulls this off at 50-55mm too, besides having better corners overall than the 2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>in general, the 16-85's performance is smooth, steady, dependable and sharp all across the board, with relatively few hiccups and surprising wide open performance for a variable aperture zoom. meanwhile the 17-55 is sharp in the center generally but has uneven performance across the aperture and focal range, requiring anyone who's shooting landscapes with it to be extremely careful how they shoot in order to maximize its strengths rather than play into its weaknesses.</p>

<p>why is this? because the 16-85 is optimized for landscapes, while the 17-55 is optimized for events. i suppose if you are only going to shoot the 17-55 at 24mm and 5.6 or narrower, where it surpasses the 16-85, you might have a point. but if you plan on shooting the 17-55 at 24mm at open apertures, watch out for extremely poor corner performance wide open--much worse in fact than the 16-85.</p>

<p>in fairness to D.B., it is true that a lot of 2.8 lenses reach max sharpness by 5.6, but the caveat to many of them is that the corners lag even when stopped down, like the 17-35.</p>

<p>you may wonder, why am i not directly comparing 16-85 and 24-70? well, that's just not a fair comparison. apples and oranges. speaking as a 24-70 owner, in general, using the 24-70 on a d7000 (or any other DX camera) mainly for landscapes is just a bad idea. its overkill, gives you balancing issues on a tripod, and would basically be a big waste of money.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>get a 17-55/2.8 Nikkor. I'm not aware of any IQ or AF complaints with that lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>D.B., overlooking the fact that AF generally isn't the main feature landscape shooters desire in a lens, did you even look at the photozone review, which is sixyears old--so old, in fact, the test was done on a d200?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Optically it is, without doubt, a very good lens but it has a few issues. The center performance is nothing short of stellar but <em>the borders are a little worse than desirable at 24mm @ f/2.8 and at 55mm (for such a lens).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>you also say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a matter of fact, I'm unaware of any AF DX zoom that's better in its focal range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's highly debateable, since nikon's own 16-85 is a bit better wide open and not as soft in the corners and tamron's original 17-50 is <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=1">sharper at every aperture and focal length</a>, according to photozone. So, by better, do you mean more overpriced?</p>

<p> </p>

[scottelly]

<p>Francesco, I shoot with a 24-70 on a Sigma SD14, and I have found it acceptable. On a 1.5 crop camera (the Sigma is a 1.7 crop), I believe the 24-70 would be a great performer. Still, it is very expensive, and I think you might find the 16-85 a better fit. I know I do miss the ability to go a little wider, and I now have a 1.5 crop Sony A55, with 18-55mm kit lens. I sometimes wish I had the 16-80mm Zeiss lens for the Sony. I believe that you would LOVE the Nikon 16-85mm, and it would go perfectly with your 70-300. Keep the 10-24 for those rare instances that you want to go even wider. Maybe even consider selling that lens and getting the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, which is an artists wide-angle, that if you shoot with it at 17mm can make a perfect super-wide landscape lens. An alternative to that lens might be the Sigma 8-16mm (not such a wide view). The Sigma will be a lens I save for, when I finally get the Zeiss lens for my Sony. It gives excellent clarity and ultra-wide views. Here is how wide it can shoot:</p>

<p>http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v68/p27480216-4.jpg</p>

<p>(I shot that image at 12mm with a full-frame camera, using a Sigma 12-24, but that wide-angle view is equivalent to what is possible with an 8-16 shooting at 8mm on a Nikon D7000. From what I've seen and read, the 8-16mm Sigma is actually sharper at 8mm than the 12-24mm is at 12mm - I'm talking about the big, full-frame Sigma 12-24mm here.)</p>

[photomarche]

<p>Scott,<br>

I am convinced that the 16-85 would be a better choice for the D7000, however I decided not to buy any lenses for now and wait what Nikon releases next. Let's see if those rumors about a new entry level FX camera are true. Is so, I might go FF and buy different lenses. Should I decide to stay on DX for a bit longer, than I will probably get the 16-85.<br>

Everything is on hold at the moment, and I think we should know what's next in the Nikon world in a couple of months time during photokina. <br>

Thank you for pointing out other options like Sigma & Tokina, I will consider that as well.</p>

 

[scottelly]

<p>Good idea. I am sort of doing the same thing . . . waiting for the new D5200. I hope it focuses faster in live-view mode. I hope it's 24 megapixels. I really would love to come back to Nikon from Sony, because of two specific lenses that are not available for my Sony A55 (or the A65 I might get soon).</p>