Lens suggestions

[roland_vink]

Fair enough Mike, I was responding to the question about 'wide zoom' lenses, which I interpreted to be super-zooms :) I guess that was going a little off-topic.

 

Getting back to the question about super-telephoto zooms, I'd say that the current crop of lenses is better than those from previous generations. Most have fairly restricted zoom ratios, such as 4x for the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 and 100-400 zooms, and only 2.5x for the Nikon 200-500. For bird photography you generally want as much reach as you can get. There is always the trade-off to be made between size/weight, reach, format (FX, DX, m4/3) and cost ...

[ben_hutcherson]

So this is a 'generic' question on lenses. When - some 15 years ago - I tried to figure out what lenses I might need for my 'brand new' DSLR,' most of the articles I read concluded that 'the greater the zoom range of a lens, the more compromises it makes w,r.t. image quality'. As a result, I still have separate zoom lenses for the 24 mm - 70 mm range, the 70 mm - 200 mm range and 400 mm (wildlife). I also have a 1.4x extender for greater reach.

 

So my question is this: has lens technology developed sufficiently over the past 15 years that 'wide zoom' lenses compromise image quality much less than 15 years ago?

 

I have 3 Nikon "normal" zooms that I use regularly depending on the specific situation. They are the 24-70 f/2.8 G(one generation old), the 24-120 f/4 VR, and the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. Those are, respectively, ~3x, 5x, and 3.5x.

 

The 24-70 f/2.8 is incredible-there's no other way to put it. It can go toe-to-toe with a lot of older primes in that range, and is better than some of them(like my 24mm f/2.8 AI). Of course, a lot of primes in that range are faster than f/2.8, and especially without VR sometimes the extra stop or two of a prime is welcome. The biggest downside, though, is that it's a heavy beast. Also, the zoom range is still somewhat limiting for me(although less so with 36mp cameras, which can be cropped without a huge loss, and the lens holds up well to cropping). Still, though, if I don't want to tote the even bigger and heavier 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, I often find myself tossing a 105mm and/or 180mm prime in the bag also. I wish Nikon's 70-200mm f/4 VR weren't so expensive, as to me that's almost a perfect companion lens to save space and weight, but I digress.

 

The other two lenses are a toss-up. They're about equal in optical quality, with the 24-120 having maybe a SLIGHT edge. VR makes up for the slower speed in certain conditions, although not all. Which I carry depends on a couple of things. If I think I'll need the extra reach, the 24-120 is an obvious choice(in fact it's a favorite pairing for me with my F6 for outdoor use). The 24-85 is a somewhat plasticy consumer lens(the 24-120 is a bit "sturdier" feeling), which translates into weight savings. In fact, if I want to "go light" my Df+24-85mm is great(if I don't have a 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4 on the Df). The Df is a lightweight camera, and its 16mp sensor is a lot more forgiving of the shortcomings of the lens.

 

I'll also mention that my 35-70mm f/2.8 is also quite good, but since 35mm is more or less normal for me(to the point that my 35mm f/1.4 is almost always glued to my favorite F2) I find its range a bit limiting. Still, though, tying wide-normal, normal, and long-normal is handy. Of course, I have to deal with annoying stuff like noisy AF(screwdriver focusing), having to switch to MF on the body, and zoom creep since it's a push-pull design. It is a nice and relatively svelte lens, although it uses a bit of an oddball filter size(67mm?) for Nikons, unlike the 77mm newer normal zooms.

[chulster]

I have 3 Nikon "normal" zooms that I use regularly depending on the specific situation. They are the 24-70 f/2.8 G(one generation old), the 24-120 f/4 VR, and the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR.

 

Ben, I see that your newly-acquired 35-70mm f/2.8 didn't make the cut. Do you want to sell the lens to me? I just don't want to spend the money on a 24-70mm, as astounding as it may be—not unless the government comes through with another stimulus check.

[ben_hutcherson]

Ben, I see that your newly-acquired 35-70mm f/2.8 didn't make the cut. Do you want to sell the lens to me? I just don't want to spend the money on a 24-70mm, as astounding as it may be—not unless the government comes through with another stimulus check.

 

 

Sorry, addressed it later in the post but it was a glaring omission in that list. I'm afraid I like it too well at least now to part with it, especially as it's a really nice match to 90s film cameras(F4, F5, N90, F100, etc) and I do appreciate having a compact and lightweight f/2.8 normal zoom.

[chulster]

Sorry, addressed it later in the post but it was a glaring omission in that list. I'm afraid I like it too well at least now to part with it, especially as it's a really nice match to 90s film cameras(F4, F5, N90, F100, etc) and I do appreciate having a compact and lightweight f/2.8 normal zoom.

 

That's quite alright. I'm glad you like it!

[ben_hutcherson]

That's quite alright. I'm glad you like it!

 

Well, you can claim credit for provoking me to get both it and the 24-70.

[mike_halliwell]

So my question is this: has lens technology developed sufficiently over the past 15 years that 'wide zoom' lenses compromise image quality much less than 15 years ago?

Without meaning to go too far off topic (!), the Sigma 24-35mm f2 FX lens is a good case in point. Without implying resolution is the be-all and end-all of all things optical, it is 'better' than the 3 Nikon 1.8 primes, ie the 24, 28, and 35 mm.... but it is a level playing field regarding measurable quality.

 

I know it's not even a x2 zoom range and it's heavy, bulky and takes big filters compared to the small, light 1.8 primes, but you only need to carry one lens and can compose at all focal lengths.

 

Sigma A 24-35 mm f/2.0 DG HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24 mm f/1.8G ED review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 28 mm f/1.8G review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 35 mm f/1.8G ED review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Whether that makes the Sigma extra good or the Nikon offerings extra poor is not really the issue, but it does represent the very high IQ possibilities of modern zooms.

 

I guess it's a combination of computer lens design, more exotic glass types, better coatings and aspheric construction that have lead to these modern developments being possible.

[John Di Leo]

FWIW,

A couple of years ago I was in B&H and got to play with the Tamron, the Sigma and the Nikon in that zoom range. I liked the Nikon best; it felt better in my hands and the quality "felt" better. Admittedly fuzzy and subjective, I know. I could only take test shots in the store (on my d810). I was looking for something that could be used for solar eclipse shooting. I remember thinking that if and when, they were all good, but I preferred the Nikon, even with 500 vs 600. Point is that if the OP has access to a shop where he can try on all three, making a decision after handling would be a lot easier.

[tommarcus]

FWIW,

A couple of years ago I was in B&H and got to play with the Tamron, the Sigma and the Nikon in that zoom range. I liked the Nikon best; it felt better in my hands and the quality "felt" better. Admittedly fuzzy and subjective, I know. I could only take test shots in the store (on my d810). I was looking for something that could be used for solar eclipse shooting. I remember thinking that if and when, they were all good, but I preferred the Nikon, even with 500 vs 600. Point is that if the OP has access to a shop where he can try on all three, making a decision after handling would be a lot easier.

 

I live in michigan, and there really isnt any sort of actual camera shop.

 

There are a few places that have 1 or 3 camera bodies in stock, but they operate just like at meijers,,,, it stays in the case until its SOLD.

 

Ask to see a lens... nope, You open,,, you just bought it.

 

And the ones that ADVERTISE as having cameras and lenses in stock.... they take your money,,,, THEN they buy the camera or lens for you.

[Gary Naka]

I've never heard anyone complain about the Nikon 200-500mm as a walk around lens for HOURS and it's only 400gm heavier. If you've got a handy allen key you can save some weight by taking off the massive tripod foot...if you're going to handhold all day.:)

 

Having a suitable strap arrangement can make a heavy combo seem much lighter. I personally find the OpTech stuff ideal for me.

 

But, sure, the final bottom-line is, if you can't take the weight, don't buy it.

 

Maybe hire them for a weekend and see what works for you?

 

All depends on your age, physical condition, and lack of injury.

I'm an injured senior citizen, lugging heavy gear is in my past.

 

I used to handhold my D7200 + 70-200/4 for both JV + Varsity high school games (football/soccer/lacrosse).

Now I shoot the JV game on a monopod, to rest my arms, so that I can shoot the varsity game free-hand.

 

I could switch to micro 4/3, but the Nikon 70-200/4 is the best handling field lens that I have seen/used. So I am going to keep using it as long as I can handle it.