dave_wilson1 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Every year I go to the Carlisle Pennsylvania Truck Show, and photograph for the Ford group. The light is always horrible, bright hazy going into the mid-day when most of the main stuff is going on and then everything in between. Dust and dirt and usually rain to deal with, flare city. I shoot the whole show, several hundred shots, with an old Tamron SP 28-85 Model 27a with a B+W K1.5 filter and no hood, and an old 300mm Nikkor f4.5 straight lens, no filter or hood. I didn't lose one shot from flair or other defect, even in the most extreme light. That zoom can usually be had for $40-80 plus a mount $15 or so, but no AF of course or fancy D metering.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconey Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 The nikkor 28-105 AF f3.5-4.5D is a nice lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 <blockquote> <p>"Lex Jenkins, if you have some time available I would be very interested if you could provide more details about your experience with the 24-120. Especially since you have used the f4 and the 3.5 version. Covering this wide of a range does the lens struggle on one end verses the other? I believe I would use it more on the 24mm end and am curious about the strength optically."</p> </blockquote> <p>Ah, my previous comment wasn't clear. I've owned and used only the 24-120/3.5-5.6 AFS VR, not the current f/4 version. Shun owns that version and can comment on it.</p> <p>I found the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR sharp enough for my purposes but I had only a 4mp D2H to use for evaluation. I had both the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR and the popular 18-70/3.5-4.5 kit zoom at the same time for a year or two. They were entirely comparable in every way, pros and cons, and comparable to the 35-70/2.8D AF. Both were satisfactorily sharp and flare resistant. Both suffered from noticeable barrel distortion at the widest end. Today, distortion correction software like Lightroom 4 would resolve that problem. The 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor didn't suffer from any significant barrel distortion at the wide end.</p> <p>Today, I'd chose the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR over the 18-70 DX because I need the VR more now to offset my shaky mitts. The 16-85 VR would probably suit me as well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 <p>The current constant f4 version of the 24-120mm AF-S VR is a fairly good lens. I have it on my D800 a lot, but you need to keep in mind that it is a 5x zoom so that there are some optical compromises. At 24mm, corner distortion and chromatic aberration are moderaterly serious, but if you are going to use it on a DX body, you won't be using that corner, problematic areas.</p> <p>Personally, I think you are better off getting a DX zoom that starts from 16 to 18mm for a better wide coverage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 <blockquote> <p>The 16-85 lens is overhyped....<br> The 24-85 2.8-4 is pretty good.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 16-85VR on photozone has consistently a higher centre resolution than the 24-85 AF-D, and nearly equal border resolution - for a DX lens versus a FX lens, that leaves that "pretty good" 24-85 with pretty poor border performance. This is comparing the tests they did with a D200. The 24-85 is similar priced as the 16-85, offering a stop more aperture, in exchange for less range and no VR, and no optical benefits. I wouldn't call it a good deal for DX users.<br> Their tests on the D7000 show that the 16-85VR holds up better than the 18-105VR (especially the borders, but overall resolution is higher throughout). The Sigma 17-70 is a nice alternative, but also that one doesn't outresolve the 16-85VR. Yes, I still concur the 16-85VR is a bit overpriced, and the 18-105VR a better bargain, but to call the 16-85VR "overhyped" is in itself overhyped. It's better than that.</p> <p>I currently have the 24-120 f/4VR; good lens, but for landscapes I think I still prefer the 16-85VR (for all other kinds of photography the f/4 aperture at the long end is nicer). Just seems a bit crispier with photos focussed at infinity - not by a whole lot, though. It is however noticeable heavier and larger. And it costs more than the budget you indicated before.<br> As Shun, I think you'll be happier with a 16 to 18mm wide end. You may not use it now, but once you'll have it you will see in how many scenarios this extra wide angle does come in useful.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 <p>I greatly appreciate all the responses! It is very helpful to know what others are using and for what circumstances. Last year when I was searching for a lens with some reach to use at softball games I asked here and ultimately ended up purchasing the 300mm f4. Love the lens and it has served me very well. To say the least I greatly value each of your opinions. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 <p>I didn't say the 16-85 isn't also pretty good. It is a good lens. But it's clearly not, given the comparables and their price points, a lens that's worth more than $600. For that money you can buy a Tamron 17-50 <em>and</em> a Nikon 35mm 1.8. Given this, it does not seem sensible that everybody who asks a question in the form "what lens should I get for [Nikon DX camera]" without being a lot more specific gets "Nikon 16-85mm" as their response. That should really be the answer in a small percentage of cases. Hence, it is overhyped.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 <p>At this point I think I just might alter my direction slightly. After reading some feedback and plenty of reviews over the past few days I haven't been overly impressed with any particular lens. I'm actually thinking of saving a little longer and getting the 14-24mm.<br> This lens was already on my list as my next major lens purchase however I wasn't expecting to get it until much later. We are planning a rather large (for us anyway) cross country vacation and this is the wide angle lens that I would like to have to go along with this trip. <br> Most likely to fill the gap I will get either an inexpensive third party such as the Tamron mentioned or possibly a simple 35mm prime. Never tried either!<br> Again, thanks for sharing your opinions!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 <p>Jennifer, to be honest, the 14-24 - excellent as it might be - is not a very logical lens on DX. You pay a lot and carry a lot (it's huge!) for extreme wideness you're not using. A lens like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is a far better match - smaller, nice price, equally f/2.8 and wider, and optically really good. Personally, I had the 12-24 f/4 Tokina which is a bit more versatile. At these wide angles, I did not miss that one stop of aperture much.<br> Most of all, as it seems now like you have relatively little experience with wide angles (given your current lenses), do take note that extreme wide angle lenses are quite a different thing; using them effectively requires a bit more thought with regards to composition. So whichever one you get, be sure to get it well in advance before the vacation, so you'll have ample time to get used to it before you're making those "once of a lifetime" shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Thank you Wouter! All very valid points you have made. I will do plenty of research before I purchase and now i will add the Tokina into that search. We do have a wide angle class that is fairly local that I hope to fit into my schedule next year. Not sure why exactly but it also includes architectural photography for a few weeks. Should be interesting either way! Now my dilemma if I hold off and purchase a wider lens is what to do about Florida next month. I really don't think the 35- 70 will do well at all with so much sunlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>I second the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina it is a great lens and is very reasonably priced. I shoot architecture for my firm and I use this more than any other lens for both interior and exteriors (on a D200). Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>The 16-85mm holds up quite nicely in bright sunlight. I have read it in tests, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>Nice for <a href=" too :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p><a href=" D300 16-85mm@28mm</p> <p><a href=" D300s 16-85mm@16mm<br> You will have distortions in some form on any wideangle lens, I believe. The distortion you are seeing in this photo can be corrected in post.</p> <p><a href=" D7000 16-85mm</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>I didn't take the time to look for very long, but <a href=" HDR photo</a> is an example of the distortion you would get from a 14-24mm on a D800@14mm. I don't think he has done any post proseccing on the distortion (not that he had to..).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>That is not distortion, it is caused by tilting the camera upward.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>Huh?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>The 14-24 is a heck of a good lens. Also expensive, heavy, etc. The 16-85 - I have experience with this on a D7000. It's good in bright light. Not that much better than other kit zooms, but good. It's crap in low light - terrible to focus, slow, and people tend to rely heavily on VR which doesn't correct everything. Back when I had a D90 and my father had a D7000, we'd be on a family trip and go somewhere in the evening, I'd have a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Nikon 35/1.8G ($450 total) and he'd have his 16-85 ($650) and I'd come away with almost nothing but sharp shots while he got almost nothing but soft or blurry shots, even though his camera body had the edge in low light in every regard and I wasn't doing much differently from him.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>Ann, I think Brad is pointing out the difference between distortion (which makes straight lines curved) and three point perspective (makes vertical lines vanish toward a point above if the camera is tilted up or below if the camera is pointed down; this is a normal effect that is corrected only by "perspective control" lenses and similar rigs).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Brad Farlow, when using the 12-24 did you shoot indoors or out? If using indoors did you need to use flash? You as well Wouter, I know you mentioned not missing the stops. Was this with use outdoors with good light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Brad Farlow, when using the 12-24 did you shoot indoors or out? If using indoors did you need to use flash? You as well Wouter, I know you mentioned not missing the stops. Was this with use outdoors with good light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Brad Farlow, when using the 12-24 did you shoot indoors or out? If using indoors did you need to use flash? You as well Wouter, I know you mentioned not missing the stops. Was this with use outdoors with good light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenniferk Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Brad Farlow, when using the 12-24 did you shoot indoors or out? If using indoors did you need to use flash? You as well Wouter, I know you mentioned not missing the stops. Was this with use outdoors with good light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <blockquote> <p>It's crap in low light - terrible to focus</p> </blockquote> <p>No, IMO it is not. Maybe not very fast, but it will focus easily on subjects that stand fairly still. In an almost completly dark landscape with a tiny light, it will focus on the light without any problems (when used on my D300).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_overland Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 <p>Andy, the camera is not tilted upwards in the HDR shot as far as I can tell.</p> 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