Nikon Lenes

rookies

rookies

Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Which Nikon Lens are near enough to these lens asking on behalf of a friend

Canon 24 - 105 F4 need to be a constant aperture through the range same goes to a 70 - 200 F4
 
Ouch alot more than canon lens then
 
Are these better than canon l lens
 
Boldonian said:
I've always wondered the deal with these Canon ' in betweener' F4 lenses. Is it just the 'L' thing? Why would you want an F4 lens these days?
Click to expand...

Cheaper and more compact. If you only do studio portraiture for example why pay more for the extra aperture that you;re not going to use nor have to deal with the extra weight?
 
Boldonian said:
I've always wondered the deal with these Canon ' in betweener' F4 lenses. Is it just the 'L' thing? Why would you want an F4 lens these days?
Click to expand...

If you have a fairly recent body you'll have had to pay for it's ability to produce noise free images at higher iso's - there's no option to buy a 5d mk2 that's only good upto iso 640, you have to pay for the high iso capability - so why shell out again when it comes to the lenses?
Wish Nikon would start doing more constant f4 lenses.
 
Boldonian said:
I've always wondered the deal with these Canon ' in betweener' F4 lenses. Is it just the 'L' thing? Why would you want an F4 lens these days?
Click to expand...

Very sharp, very light, well built and still very affordable. They also have 2.8 for those who need one. Nikon doesn't give that choice :lol:
 
Boldonian said:
I've always wondered the deal with these Canon ' in betweener' F4 lenses. Is it just the 'L' thing? Why would you want an F4 lens these days?
Click to expand...
I've got the new Nikon 24-120 f4. As I shoot with a D700 the results even at high iso are great, the extra stop my 24-70 f2.8 gave me isn't as important to me as the extra length I get on the 24-12 and VR is an added bonus!
 
Woodsy said:
I've heard that getting syphilis is better than canon L lenses.





:exit:


:naughty:
Click to expand...

Do you mind - it is flamin difficult to get coffee out of a keyboard:eek::eek::eek:
 
Not a constant aperture but I have the older 24-120mm f3.5/5.6 VR and the 80-400mm 4.5/5.6 VR and have no complaints what so ever optical wise:)
Then again I have also got a old set of Tokina ATX 28-80mm 2.8, 80-200mm 2.8 and 300mm 2.8 superb build and optics but its very rare I even shoot these wide open.
Using a variable aperture lens isn't such a issue theses days we have built in auto meters along with all the other auto offerings. :)
 
Phiggys said:
Not a constant aperture but I have the older 24-120mm f3.5/5.6 VR
Click to expand...

There is also the venerable 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D whihc, again isnlt a constant aperture, but what you lose at the long end you gain at the wide. It's a fantastic lens for the price you can pick them up (2nd hand only). If I had a D700 I think mine would sit on it 90% of the time.
 
NorthernNikon said:
There is also the venerable 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D whihc, again isnlt a constant aperture, but what you lose at the long end you gain at the wide. It's a fantastic lens for the price you can pick them up (2nd hand only). If I had a D700 I think mine would sit on it 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

I also had one of those back in my film days :gag:
I think I must have had a rogue one as I had the Sigma 28-105mm on my 2nd body and it always out performed the Nikon equiv :(
So I traded it in and kept the Sigma and had a 24-120mm VR the one in a certain persons TOP 10 WORST Nikon lenses.
I was so impressed with mine and still am even on a digi body that I purchased a 2nd one shortly after my first one.
 
Last edited:
If the 70-200mm VR is a bit too expensive why not try the 80-200mm f/2.8. It doesn't have VR, is slightly slower in the AF dept but is comparable in IQ and costs about £700.
 
Phiggys said:
I also had one of those back in my film days :gag:
I think I must have had a rogue one as I had the Sigma 28-105mm on my 2nd body and it always out performed the Nikon equiv :(
Click to expand...

Are you sure you had the AF-D and not the G? I've not heard of anything but praise for the AF-D. The G was a much cheaper lens in all respects. If you did have the AF-D you must have had a rare dud.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Are you sure you had the AF-D and not the G? I've not heard of anything but praise for the AF-D. The G was a much cheaper lens in all respects. If you did have the AF-D you must have had a rare dud.
Click to expand...

Hi yes your right about the rave revues and praise it was the AF-D with the aperture ring the same as this one
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28105af.htm
I have to say it was a real disappointment:( but like I say maybe a rogue one that got through Q.C. ?
I was shooting film back then on F90x and F4s even tried it on my first Dslr expecting I might get better results but alas not so hence I traded in for one of these
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm well mine was a corker :) and shortly after I purchased a 2nd one for my 2nd body.
Good job I did have access to the revue above lol's

I also loaned one of these
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120af.htm
But found this to be rather soft as well.

This had happened 2 me the 1st time back in the 80s sold my Canon AV1 + pin sharp 50mm f1.8FD lens.
Purchased a Canon A1 with another 50mm f1.8 and it wasn't any where near as good as the 1st one I sold :(

So I guess it goes to show any manufacturer can turn out the odd duff one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top