nigel fraustbyte Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 <p>24-70 from nikon is a very large and very heavy lens. you might want to take that in consideration</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 <blockquote> <p>It goes down to 1:2 @ 85mm so it's a "true" macro in that way.</p> </blockquote> <p>1:1 is "true" macro.</p> <blockquote> <p>The only thing that is a problem with the 24-70 f2.8 is it's weight and size.</p> </blockquote> <p>i'd say cost is also kind of problematic. it's $1900 new, so not cost-effective unless you are shooting paid events or money is no object. but distortion makes it a less than ideal landscape lens; for reportage/PJ/events, its flaws don't matter. incidentally,i have the 28-75 too and that lens is a real sleeper. reasonably sharp, FX, compact, inexpensive. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <blockquote> <p>but I know the zoom is a legend and I want to get something that I will be happy with in the foreseeable future</p> </blockquote> <p>Almost exactly my thought process when I opted for the 17-55/2.8 while still shooting DX only - after a few years, I realized that the main thing I didn't like about the 17-55 was the limited range and I got rid of it. And the lesson learned carried over to FX - I have no use for a 24-70/2.8 - the wide end is fine but the long end just ends up being too short for me. The lack of VR in either also counts against them in my book. Bulk and weight can be problematic at times - but almost any prime lens set will weigh more and will certainly take up more space.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <p><em>the main thing I didn't like about the 17-55 was the limited range</em></p> <p>While a larger zoom range would be useful, today we have such high resolution sensors (24, 36MP) that it is practical to shoot a head and shoulders portrait slightly loosely with the 70mm end of the 24-70 (on FX) and crop a bit to get to the desired tighter composition. This type of a lens can cover a lot of ground and one could shoot entire events successfully without having to use any other lens. That can't really be said of any other lens type, especially if a part of the event is located indoors. The 24-120/4 gives more range in the long end but image quality is not as good especially at f/4. A 24-70/2.8 can be combined with a 70-200/2.8 and with the pair of lenses even many outdoor situations (as well as speaker shots indoors) are covered.</p> <p>I posted images of a royal wedding in this week's Wednesday thread; I had a 35/85/200 prime set with me. Using the 85mm for shots of the horses and riders, my composition was a bit too tight (having a focus point on a rider's face); the legs of the horses were chopped off and this compositional problem would have been avoided if I had used the 24-70mm. With primes, there is always a chance that at a critical moment the composition is too tight (or too wide, but cropping can deal with that if the problem is moderate). If I make photographs for myself, this is an acceptable risk (the benefit is that I can shoot late into the evening with fast primes, and better control the appearance of out of focus areas), but if I am photographing a wedding for the couple, the 24-70 is the main lens I use since there are many situations where things move very quickly and the angle of view needs to be adapted in real time. There are often limitations in in where the photographer can stand, and how much they can move. The same situation occurs at baptisms, funerals, and a number of other events.</p> <p><em>not cost-effective unless you are shooting paid events or money is no object.</em></p> <p>This is very subjective and dependent on a lot of factors including the individual's economic situation. A professional photographer is subject to the constraint that a lens purchase has to produce a corresponding increase in income. For the 24-70 it should not be too difficult to justify for a professional photographer living in most European or North American countries. For an amateur photographer, a lens purchase doesn't have to produce any financial result but is justified depending on what kind of photographic results it is likely to produce as well as how much fun it is to use it (and subject to economic constraints, which are often less severe for non-professionals since photography is a relatively low income profession). "Money is no object" is an unusual case and there is a large economic gap between being able to buy one $1900 general-purpose lens (new or used) and those people to whom have more money than they can spend.</p> <p>In the winter, when it gets really cold, I do a lot of landscape photography. In -25C I don't really want to switch between lenses or batteries a lot, and so if I can avoid lens changes by using a 24-70 I often stick to it, and enjoy capturing different compositions quickly while my internal batteries still can keep me from freezing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <p>As Eric says, my criticism of the 24-70 was a bit subjective. Certainly there are valid criticisms of the 14-24 (actually the field curvature bothers me more than the filter issue) and the 70-200 (though the focus breathing really doesn't bother me). In terms of optical quality compared with other lenses on the market, however, I believe the 24-70 is behind cutting edge, and I don't believe I'm the only one to express that. Is it a "bad lens"? Certainly not. Is it good enough to be worth my spending its going rate? No. I don't do enough of the kind of shooting that would justify a moderate-speed zoom mostly covering a range of focal lengths I don't use much (as I've just said in <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dLQR">another thread</a>).<br /> <br /> If I typically shot different subjects, I'd have a completely different opinion, and the optical and financial compromises would have a different weight. When I shot a wedding, I hired a 24-70, and it got used heavily (mostly by my second shooter while I alternated between a 14-24, a 70-200 and a selection of primes). I completely get why Ilkka could have made use of it, and why it's a popular lens for a lot of people. I just don't often feel the need for f/2.8 in that focal range - usually, for my subjects, I have more control over framing, want the option of wider than 24mm or much better background isolation than a mid-range f/2.8 zoom, or I'm in such low light that a VR-free f/2.8 zoom isn't going to be enough to make the difference. A decent slower zoom is more tempting to me, along with the primes I have; I may reconsider when/if the 24-70 is upgraded, if the improvements are sufficient.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <blockquote> <p>While a larger zoom range would be useful, today we have such high resolution sensors (24, 36MP) that it is practical to shoot a head and shoulders portrait slightly loosely with the 70mm end of the 24-70 (on FX) and crop a bit to get to the desired tighter composition.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed - but my experience with the 17-55 was from using it on a 12MP D300 - not a lot of MP to spare (and 55mm on DX is the almost the equivalent to 85mm FOV on FX - so I am missing quite a bit of range with the 24-70). If I was shooting (more) events, then I surely would have a 24-70/2.8 for my FX cameras - can't imagine doing without. The limited range would be something I could cope with under those circumstances - but it's a totally different issue when considering other photographic venues. When I purchased the 17-55 - I had done so with the hope that it would become my most used and most versatile lens. Turned out that I chose the wrong trade-off in the compromise between speed and focal length range.</p> <blockquote> <p>The 24-120/4 gives more range in the long end but image quality is not as good especially at f/4.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's an issue on FX - on DX I am quite confident that the 16-85 is optically every bit as good as the 17-55 - just between 1/2 and 2 stops stops slower depending on focal length. So if most of the shooting is restricted to f/5.6 or slower - then there is no advantage in carrying the 17-55 over the 16-85. </p> <blockquote> <p>A decent slower zoom is more tempting to me, along with the primes I have</p> </blockquote> <p>That's the approach I am currently trying out - will have to see how it turns out.</p> <blockquote> <p>Using the 85mm for shots of the horses and riders, my composition was a bit too tight (having a focus point on a rider's face); the legs of the horses were chopped off and this compositional problem would have been avoided if I had used the 24-70mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily a compositional issue IMO - as it avoids getting something in the frame commonly observed when horses and hard pavement meet (not talking hooves here) ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <p>Dieter, these are <em>royal</em> horses, they wouldn't <em>do</em> that. ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 <p>To answer the OP's question.</p> <p>No...it's not. Especially if you go to non-Nikon primes.</p> <p>It's an over-due, soon-to-be updated heavy-weight dinosaur.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 <p>Thanks again for the input - its good to see this lens discussed. I think I will definitely go for the prime lenses to fill the gap - especially seeing that I am not doing any critical paid assignments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 <blockquote> <p> I am quite confident that the 16-85 is optically every bit as good as the 17-55 - just between 1/2 and 2 stops stops slower depending on focal length.</p> </blockquote> <p>photozone's tests back up that opinion; in fact the 16-85 is neck and neck with the (original) tamron 17-50 which recorded some of the highest MTF figures ever for a DX zoom at that time, PZ says.<br> <br> regarding the 24-120, it's disappointing to hear its not that great wide open, as the difference between f/4 and 5.6 in critical low-light environments is significant. i can sometimes get away with f/4 on my zooms with a high shutter speed for concert/club stuff if the lighting is halfway decent. but if i had to be at 5.6 to get acceptable sharpness, that would be a dealbreaker for that type of work. i was considering the d750 with the 24-120 as kit lens deal, but now i might pass, although the focal range is useful.<br> <br> i use the 24-70 professionally because that's a professional lens i can count on to get the job done. but if i didnt need to use that, i would balk at the cost. it's not <em>that much</em> better than the tamron 28-75, for instance, but it is better. it's also a lot heavier and bulkier, and there are times when i simply dont want to carry that much weight if i dont have to.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 <p>I had the Nikon 16-85mm and it had varying focus shift at different zoom settings. I could never resolve that. Shame really as it gave wonderful results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 <p>If you mean that the optimal focus fine tune setting is dependent on focal length, this is common in zooms (not all of them, but some). I think finding a happy medium across the range is the best solution for the time being. Which camera body did you use with the 16-85?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>I found this very same behavior time ago on the 17-55, when I used to have a D300 (I think I tested it at closest distances). Not an issue at all for my "real life" shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>Ilkka, it was enough to make for quite soft photos on a d7000 and d7100 - but it was purchased as used but like new so it may have been noted by the original buyer and traded in because of that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>I was wondering if the 24-70mm f2.8 is a better option than going for more of the primes like the new 28 or 35mm (I have the 50 and 85 already).</p> <p>Since you already have the 50 an 85 mm lenses yuo need, it seems that Sigma is listening to your request and will anounce a fast zoom for the 24 - 35 challenge ( or so they say..). No saying though about how long it will take Sigma to get this lens available on the (U.S.) market...:<br> <a href="https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=524">https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=524</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Should you decide to wait for the Sigma zoom to appear, you could pass the time waiting by asking whether the Sigma zoom is equal to the fixed focal length lenses. The result will be the same: unless they perform an unexpected miracle, probably not.<br><br>"Prime" lenses, by the way, are lenses that are used with an auxilliary (or secondary) optical device to alter the way the primary lens works. Things like teleconverters, anamorphic lenses, close-up lenses etc. Unless a fixed focal length lens (a.k.a. a "lens". People already invented a way to indicate the difference between a lens and a zoom lens. They simply put the word "zoom" in front of the word "lens". So we have lenses, and we have zoom lenses. Both could be 'primes', if and when used with a secondary lens.) is used with such a device, it is not a 'prime'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Q.G., language changes constantly over time. Sometimes words can turn on their heads and start to be used to mean the opposite of what they used to mean. For example, as a physicist it annoys me that people talk about flash power when they really mean flash energy, which is the time integral of the power over the duration of the flash. The reason this is particularly wrong is because most flashes adjust their energy by varying primarily the flash duration and not the power. But it is usually best to let go and use the precise terminology to communicate with engineers and the conventionally accepted popular tems when communicating with photographers. ;-) I think prime lens is used because it is shorter than "fixed focal length" or a "non-zoom" lens. Also some will inevitably confuse fixed focal length and fixed focus. Another confusion is between zoom and long focal length lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>Q.G.: miracles happen. The 18-35 really does seem to be keeping the f/1.8 primes honest on DX, and Sigma are making big noises about the quality of the 24-35 f/2 being up there with their own Art primes, which are already well-regarded. Of course, the zoom isn't f/1.4. I'll be interested to see what this can do; I'm less obsessed with speed when it comes to wider lenses, because there's not going to be as much subject isolation anyway. The 24-35 is only a 1.5x zoom, and don't forget the 14-24 Nikkor is considered better than Nikon's prime options in its range (and most prime options with the exception of a couple of Zeisses). I'm in no rush while I already have a 35 f/1.4, though I wouldn't object to being able to trust the focus a bit more than I do.<br /> <br /> Terminology gets abused, and I think "prime" has entered common parlance as single-focal-length (but not focus-free, which is how a lot of novices might interpret as "single focal length"). I didn't know that derivation of prime (thank you), but technically a "zoom lens" is a parfocal lens (doesn't require refocus after zooming); the 70-200 f/2.8, at least, is absolutely varifocal (needs to be refocussed). And, of course, a "telephoto" lens is a lens that has the focal length longer than the physical lens (the optical centre is in front of the lens), the reverse of a retrofocal lens (whose optical centre is behind the lens). Frankly, I'm just happy when people use "f/2" instead of "f-2" and therefore have some hope of avoiding the "bigger number means a smaller aperture" nonsense.<br /> <br /> Edit: Cross-over with Ilkka. And yes, the "zoom doesn't mean long" thing is a good starting point for unconfusing people. As for energy and power, I want to find whoever came up with the milli-amp hour and smack them over the head with a book that teaches S.I. units. Coulombs and Joules aren't that complex to get right. I blame the Americans for trying to do everything in pounds and inches. (Even if "Imperial" was the fault of us Brits!)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I'm less obsessed with speed when it comes to wider lenses, because there's not going to be as much subject isolation anyway</p> </blockquote> <p>But i am ( not really obsessed, but interrested..), i like to be able to use the wider lenses also indoors, and i relly like to avoid artificial light as much as possible ( it cannot always be avoided to use the odd flash or Led panel, but i just like "natural light" and "as is " circumstances a lot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>I sympathise, CPM - and this <i>is</i> exactly why I have an f/1.4 35mm. I guess by the time I'm much wider than that, I wouldn't expect to need to raise the shutter speed - but I'm speaking without trying the new Nikkor 20 f/1.8. I may get my hands on it and fall in love. (I got my hands on the Sigma version in a shop, but at anything resembling a wide aperture it's... ew.) That said, I spend so much time with my 14-24 stopped down to compensate for the field curvature, I probably shouldn't even be thinking of it as an f/2.8. I'll be interested to see what the new Sigma can do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Ilka, i think your flash power next to flash energy example nicely shows why it is important sometimes to not let misuse of words go unchallenged. It's never too late to let people know where the jargon they adopted, inherited from others, originated (different words have different meanings because they are used to distinguish between different things). After all, if we allowed people to continue believing that the world is flat... Or that people never actually believed the word was flat... ;-)<br>"Prime", despite widespread misuse, is not the word for a lens that is not a zoom lens. Can't hurt to let people know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Andrew, it gets confused real quick, doesn't it? "Telephoto" or "retrofocus" lenses, for instance, are not lenses, but compound lenses. Compound lenses do not have a single optical centre. They have (among other things concerning optical geometrics) two principal planes, from which the focal length is measured, and they do indeed not have to be located at the physical centre of the lens. Nor does the rear principal plane (the important one for this) have to lie behind or in front of the lens. A "telephoto" is a particular design that employs a negative group to lengthen the optical path relative to the build length of the lens. A "retrofocus" is another particular design that does the reverse. Lenses that employ neither telephoto nor retrofocus design can (most of the time do) have the rear principal plane lie somewhere 'off centre', simply because they never are truly symmetric.<br><br>Bigger numbers mean smaller apertures is not nonsense. You just have to know that the numbers are not the aperture size, but are derived from the aperture size (or rather the pupil size - of which there are two in a lens) and that this is done so to have numbers that allow to compare the brightness of the image produced by lenses without having to do the maths every time. The "f/x" notation reminds us that maths has been used to take the focal length 'out of the equation', but serves no real practical purpose.<br>The point (again - see my reply to Ilka) is that it can't hurt to know a bit about the stuff we photographers are dealing with. So if there is confusion, evident from term misuse, there is a need for education. The abuse of terminology is not something that we should brush aside as a 'language changes' thing. It is a 'people know less than they should' thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>On the compound lens front, I understand, but I gave up the fight about "battery" vs "cell" a long time ago. :-) I appreciate that we're treating a compound object as a single one, but that's not going to stop me using the thin lens equation and thinking of it as useful for thought experiments. Otherwise we're in danger of discussing the "len", and there will come a point where I really need to read a book on optics.<br /> <br /> The aperture is described as a fraction. f/2 is a larger fraction, and therefore aperture, than f/4, because 1/2 is a bigger number than 1/4. This is why I try to be insistent about the "f/" notation - thought of as a fraction, the numbers aren't "backwards", the way some people try to teach novices. The "backwards" belief actively hampers people when they try to talk about the effects of aperture on depth of field and in the endless discussions I seem to have about the effect of format changes, so I really try to encourage people to be consistent.<br /> <br /> I agree, education is a good thing - and I'm grateful to learn the derivation of "prime", which I'd somehow failed to pick up before. But I did want to point out that "zoom" is no less abused as a term than "prime", so "not-a-zoom" doesn't really get us anywhere. If there was a concise, unambiguous but completely technically correct alternative to "prime", I would be very happy to be using it (I am greatly in favour of pedantry, in general), but I've not heard it yet. I don't usually go around correcting people's definition of "macro lens" either. If there's no confusion about what we mean, I'll generally accept that there are <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3761">bigger fights</a> to be had <a href="https://xkcd.com/386/">out there</a>.<br /> <br /> Have a good weekend, everyone. Happy shooting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Andrew, ask yourself what a 'not-zoom' lens was called before zoom lenses (whether varifocal or whatever) were invented. That then is the correct term to be used as an alternative (?) to "prime".<br>Think of it this way: after New Amsterdam was founded, nobody thought it necessary to search for an "unambiguous but completely technically correct alternative" name for Amsterdam. Amsterdam was Amsterdam, New Amsterdam was New Amsterdam. The same when New Amsterdam changed its name to New York. That was no reason for York to start searching for a new name that would distinguish it from this place called New York. That small word "new" that was used as a prefix for that new place's name did suffice. Just like that prefix "zoom" does all that is required.<br>So just like Amsterdam and York do not need an alternative name, there is no need for an alternative for "prime". People should just stop using that word, unless they really mean a primary lens.<br>Should it really be necessary once in a while to stress the fact that these lenses have a fixed focal length, you do so by saying that these lenses have a fixed focal length. Else we have lenses, and we have zoom lenses (and any other variant that has its own prefix to distinguish it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 <p>It's hard to insist on a traditional/historic/accurate nomenclature when virtually everyone is using the term incorrectly. "Prime" and "zoom" are prime examples. Even the manufacturers don't use the terms correctly - so any discussion is bound to get into pointing out that such and such called it that way and that all those can't possibly be wrong. Tilting at windmills comes to mind. As a scientist I am all for using correct terminology - but I have mostly given up picking fights over it. Especially when I am confronted with so many google results that state differently.<br> Why do newspapers and the police in the US insist on using "traveling at a high rate of speed" when most likely they mean "traveling at high speed"? Or was the car really accelerating (i.e. changing speed/velocity over time)?</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