kit > consumer > prosumer > pro lenses

cowasaki

cowasaki

TPer Emeritus
Messages
19,708
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone seen any reviews where they show the actual differences between lenses as they get more and more expensive?

For example comparing

£179 Nikon AFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
£379 Nikon AFS 18-70
£549 Nikon AFS 24-85 FX or 16-85 DX (£629 for the FX)
£1299 Nikon AFS 24-70 FX or 17-55 DX (£1499 for the FX)

I'm not putting these 4 forwards as kit, consumer, pro-sumer and pro but would that be fair? What would the Nikon league table be of 4 lenses in that type of range and how would they compare (picture quality/build quality/speed of focus/speed etc).

Is it worth spending £1400-1500 on a 24-70 over a lens costing half that amount?

Is the £1499 24-70 really 10 times better than the 18-55 ???
 
cowasaki said:
Is the £1499 24-70 really 10 times better than the 18-55 ???
Click to expand...
Well, on your prices it costs 7 times as much (£1299 vs £179), not 10 times as much.

But to answer your question, you need to define "better".

The 24-70 is much better at f/2.8 and and at f/4, and probably also at f/5.6.
The 24-70 is much better at focal lengths longer than 55mm.
The 24-70 will withstand physical abuse much better.

I guess it depends how much those things matter to you.
 
StewartR said:
Well, on your prices it costs 7 times as much (£1299 vs £179), not 10 times as much.

But to answer your question, you need to define "better".

The 24-70 is much better at f/2.8 and and at f/4, and probably also at f/5.6.
The 24-70 is much better at focal lengths longer than 55mm.
The 24-70 will withstand physical abuse much better.

I guess it depends how much those things matter to you.
Click to expand...

Well its £1499 on my prices so thats 8 and a bit times but I was just rounding it :) (I am going off Nikon's retail price list)

I was saying better but then mentioned 4 areas where that could apply such as build / picture quality / speed / speed of focus but I was leaving it for peoples comments on what is "better". I doubt many people actually have all these lenses to actually compare but I would like to see the same picture taken with all four. I appreciate it is not as simple as that but it would be interesting to see nonetheless.

or

On an FX camera is the 24-70 more than twice as good as the 24-85 ?

Oh and how would it compare with the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG MACRO ????


lenscomp.png
 
On an FX camera is the 24-70 more than twice as good as the 24-85 ?

No.

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG MACRO ????

The Nikkor trounces it, its wide open where you'll see it.

I don't think you can quantify things as in 10x better etc, its the laws of deminishing returns.

I personally do not find the 24-70 worth owning, but I shoot landscape / nature and I don't need to shoot wide open, and a huge heavy lens is not conducent with hikes etc.
 
puddleduck said:
On an FX camera is the 24-70 more than twice as good as the 24-85 ?

No.

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG MACRO ????

The Nikkor trounces it, its wide open where you'll see it.

I don't think you can quantify things as in 10x better etc, its the laws of deminishing returns.

I personally do not find the 24-70 worth owning, but I shoot landscape / nature and I don't need to shoot wide open, and a huge heavy lens is not conducent with hikes etc.
Click to expand...

The 10x thing was just a point of discussion :)

The 24-70 range is more important to me than the 70-200 range (but it would be nice to have both if I could afford it - which I just about can IF I get the pro-sumer lenses costing about £600 each rather than £1400ish)!

I was just thinking that if I get the models at half the money I can get both but wanted to know if I would loose out much!! Is it worth loosing the flexibility for the better quality?
 
and ignoring my specific case is the 18-70 twice as good as the 18-55 :)

I actually like the 18-55 !
 
You can get the 24-70's predecessor the 35-70 f2.8D used for around £300, smaller than the latest version, sharp, solid build and a nice range on FX.
 
Martyn... said:
You can get the 24-70's predecessor the 35-70 f2.8D used for around £300, smaller than the latest version, sharp, solid build and a nice range on FX.
Click to expand...

But how does it compare optically? The difference in price is as much as the difference between a D700 and D3 !!
 
Going slightly ot, but I went from a Tamron 17-50 to a Nikon 17-55, which cost me more than 3 times as much. I wouldn't say the iq is 3 times better, but the build quality, handling and the durability are.

Was it worth it? I'd say so, but it depends what your priorities (and budget) are...
 
cowasaki said:
and ignoring my specific case is the 18-70 twice as good as the 18-55 :)

I actually like the 18-55 !
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can quantify "twice as good"

Twice sharpness? Twice bokeh, Twice contrast, build - I just don't think it works like that.

Purely on sharpness I suppose if you say at f/4 its sharper than the other lens at f/5.6 then its technically twice as sharp. But on those terms it isn't either.

At the highest price points you are paying - bluntly - for the label and build.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Going slightly ot, but I went from a Tamron 17-50 to a Nikon 17-55, which cost me more than 3 times as much. I wouldn't say the iq is 3 times better, but the build quality, handling and the durability are.

Was it worth it? I'd say so, but it depends what your priorities (and budget) are...
Click to expand...

This was supposed to be a general discussion rather than one specifically about my predicament :)

BUT using mine again.... I have an 18-200 and I am happy with the quality of that because I really look after my kit. SO the pro-sumer build quality would be adequate. If the optical quality is virtually as good with the £600 lens then I could either upgrade to the D3 rather than the D700 OR (and my probable choice) get the 70-200 sigma and a AFS 50mm f1.4 so giving me far more flexibility. I am absolutely petrified of getting it all wrong and buying the wrong stuff :|
 
cowasaki said:
But how does it compare optically? The difference in price is as much as the difference between a D700 and D3 !!
Click to expand...

Not a lot in it, the 24-70 will have all the latest nano coatings, but the 35-70 f2.8D had a fine reputation for sharpness and IQ.

pbase 35-70 f2.8

pbase 24-70 f2.8


The only thing that would make me go for the 24-70 over the 35-70 would be if I had to have that extra width.
 
puddleduck said:
I don't see how you can quantify "twice as good"

Twice sharpness? Twice bokeh, Twice contrast, build - I just don't think it works like that.

Purely on sharpness I suppose if you say at f/4 its sharper than the other lens at f/5.6 then its technically twice as sharp. But on those terms it isn't either.

At the highest price points you are paying - bluntly - for the label and build.
Click to expand...

So I might have been better wording it as "is the 24-70 worth £750 more than the 24-85?" or would I be better spending that £750 on another TWO lenses!
 
Martyn... said:
Not a lot in it, the 24-70 will have all the latest nano coatings, but the 35-70 f2.8D had a fine reputation for sharpness and IQ.

pbase 35-70 f2.8

pbase 24-70 f2.8


The only thing that would make me go for the 24-70 over the 35-70 would be if I had to have that extra width.
Click to expand...

Thats interesting. The width will be sorted by the Sigma 20mm I am already buying.
 
cowasaki said:
So I might have been better wording it as "is the 24-70 worth £750 more than the 24-85?" or would I be better spending that £750 on another TWO lenses!
Click to expand...

If you need to shoot wide open at f/2.8 with excellent sharpness, then yes / maybe.

If you want to shoot at f/5.6 through f/11 then no.

I'd look at maybe the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D, the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S or the Tamron 28-75 or the Nikkor 24-85 as well. They are all excellent. The Nikkor 28-70 and the 24-70 are optically almost identical performers.
 
So the general consensus is that the pro-sumer lenses have reached the point where they are optically near spot on (unless we are at 2.8) but if you pay twice as much the build quality and label then match :)
 
Or putting it another way which lenses in the £500 range are as good as the £1400 ones :)

Uncle Ken seems to like the AFS 28-70 f/2.8 !
 
Martyn... said:
Not a lot in it, the 24-70 will have all the latest nano coatings, but the 35-70 f2.8D had a fine reputation for sharpness and IQ.

pbase 35-70 f2.8

pbase 24-70 f2.8


The only thing that would make me go for the 24-70 over the 35-70 would be if I had to have that extra width.
Click to expand...

That the 35-70 isn't internal focusing is annoying. I got rid of mine solely for that reason. Shame really, everything else about that lens was bonza.
 
cowasaki said:
Thats interesting. The width will be sorted by the Sigma 20mm I am already buying.
Click to expand...

The 35-70 is ace. If you can deal with the front of the lens spinning round when it focuses, you'll not regret it. It's cheap (relatively speaking) and brilliant.
 
welly said:
That the 35-70 isn't internal focusing is annoying. I got rid of mine solely for that reason. Shame really, everything else about that lens was bonza.
Click to expand...

The 18-200 had the IF monika so I thought it would be IF then when I got it it extends. Does IF just mean that the length doesn't change whilst focussing just whilst zooming!
 
cowasaki said:
The 18-200 had the IF monika so I thought it would be IF then when I got it it extends. Does IF just mean that the length doesn't change whilst focussing just whilst zooming!
Click to expand...

No, nothing really to do with zooming. Internal focusing lenses are kind of closed off at the end so when you stick a filter on it, it doesn't rotate. Non-IF lenses, the end of the lens is exposed (sort of). Someone will have a better definition I'm sure :)
 
welly said:
No, nothing really to do with zooming. Internal focusing lenses are kind of closed off at the end so when you stick a filter on it, it doesn't rotate. Non-IF lenses, the end of the lens is exposed (sort of). Someone will have a better definition I'm sure :)
Click to expand...

It's always confused me that one. I kept meaning to look it up but never got round to it :) Having the filter rotating would be annoying especially if you are using an ND grad or CPL !
 
cowasaki said:
It's always confused me that one. I kept meaning to look it up but never got round to it :) Having the filter rotating would be annoying especially if you are using an ND grad or CPL !
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the reason I got rid of mine.

Actually, just looked up about internal focusing. There's more to it than just the lens barrel being exposed or otherwise. But in all intents and purposes, that's what mostly matters :)
 
welly said:
Yeah, that's the reason I got rid of mine.

Actually, just looked up about internal focusing. There's more to it than just the lens barrel being exposed or otherwise. But in all intents and purposes, that's what mostly matters :)
Click to expand...

What do you use now then, I see you also have a D700?
 
Darren - I'd happily lend you my 24-70 (and D700 if required,) for a day out to play with - it's a shame about the distance, as we have discussed before...

If you're ever in this area and want to have a proper play before splashing your cash, you're more than welcome, as you know. ;)

Having no hands-on experience of the other lenses you are considering, all I can say is that the D700 and 24-70 are a brilliant combo. :D
 
irw1 said:
Darren - I'd happily lend you my 24-70 (and D700 if required,) for a day out to play with - it's a shame about the distance, as we have discussed before...

If you're ever in this area and want to have a proper play before splashing your cash, you're more than welcome, as you know. ;)

Having no hands-on experience of the other lenses you are considering, all I can say is that the D700 and 24-70 are a brilliant combo. :D
Click to expand...

I really can't get over just how great people are on here!

I have never even held a D700 but having the D200 and wanting FF it is clearly the way to go. I have been moved to another job within the organisation I work for (temporarily!) and with the overtime I am going to be earning on top of the money I have already saved I would JUST have enough money for that combination BUT I do not normally have as much money to spend on camera equipment as I would like so this is likely to be the last of my cash for a while hence the questions. IF I have to I would buy the 24-70 because THAT is the range I am most interested in BUT if I can get something that is optically as good or virtually as good for £700 then I could spend another £600 approx on another lens or two to give me more flexibility. £600 will get me a Sigma 70-200 and after selling one of my AF 50 f1.8 lenses would get me a AF 50 f1.4.

I would love to have a go with you camera and lens but like you said it really is a long distance. I really do appreciate the offer though.
 
Why not buy on finance or get a 0% credit card......I really am the devil on your shoulder :)
 
cowasaki said:
This was supposed to be a general discussion rather than one specifically about my predicament :)

BUT using mine again.... I have an 18-200 and I am happy with the quality of that because I really look after my kit. SO the pro-sumer build quality would be adequate. If the optical quality is virtually as good with the £600 lens then I could either upgrade to the D3 rather than the D700 OR (and my probable choice) get the 70-200 sigma and a AFS 50mm f1.4 so giving me far more flexibility. I am absolutely petrified of getting it all wrong and buying the wrong stuff :|
Click to expand...

The problem with that plan is that the likes of the D3, D300/700 really punish less than perfect glass. I've never understood the idea behind buying a high-end or pro camera and then sticking mediocre glass on it - it's like buying a new Porsche and then going to Kwik Fit for a set of remoulds....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The problem with that plan is that the likes of the D3, D300/700 really punish less than perfect glass. I've never understood the idea behind buying a high-end or pro camera and then sticking mediocre glass on it - it's like buying a new Porsche and then going to Kwik Fit for a set of remoulds....
Click to expand...

That was part of it. Get the £1400 lens or will the £700 lens be indistinguishable. General concenous is that the other lens is a good choice. That would give me several decent lenses fir the D700. I will then have the D200 as a second body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top