On a D700 which has best IQ, a 50mm f1.8 or the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 (@ 50mm length)?

N

Naith

Messages
716
Edit My Images
Yes
Just out of interest really. I'm pretty sure IQ is the same but someone I know disagrees...

(Thinking of differences in centre and corner sharpness, bokeh, etc)
 
Ken Rockwell:

In case you are new to photography, let me emphasize that this inexpensive lens is as sharp and over twice as sensitive to dim light as the $1,700 24-70mm f/2.8AF-S lens. The reason to spend sixteen times as much is simply to get a lens that can zoom. With this fixed 50mm you have to move forward and back to compose your photo. No big deal.
Click to expand...
 
Laudrup said:
Ken Rockwell:
Click to expand...

its good to see Ken is as helpful and insightful as ever :shrug: - at the same apperture and the zoom at 50mm I doubt you'll tell the difference, but the zoom is possibly slightly better due to a newer design, improved coatings etc....etc
 
Thanks. I'm hankering after a D700 but don't want to drop so much on the 24-70. I've recently started to use primes more and really enjoy them. So maybe looking out for primes will be a good start...

(I've heard good things about the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, etc too - but I think that's a different thread altogether :D)
 
The AFS 24-70 f2.8G just nudges the AF f1.8 D, but is about the same as the AFS f1.4 G.

I have all three!
 
The IQ is definitely better on the 24-70 - it has extra low dispersion elements (for CA control) and nano coating for flare control too.

And thats before you start to talk about pleasing bokeh and colour rendition... oh and AFS!

Funnily enough the nasty fifty is not as good as one of the holy trinity...
 
I pretty much ignore what Ken Rockwell has to say these days...
 
Just don't take it seriously of what ken has got to say. He has his ways to persuading newbies!
 
Last edited:
Safest bet is to ignore KR until you know enough to sort out the BS from the reality.

At f/1.8 - f/2.7, the 50mm prime can't be touched by the zoom and the same is probably true up to about f/4. Foot zoom isn't always an option though, so if \I had to chose between the 2 lenses, I would go for the 24-70 and that's what stays in the bag when weight's an issue with the 50mm staying at home. IF I think I may need the extra light grabbing that the f/1.8 offers though, I'll sacrifice my back and take both.
 
Nod said:
Safest bet is to ignore KR until you know enough to sort out the BS from the reality.

At f/1.8 - f/2.7, the 50mm prime can't be touched by the zoom and the same is probably true up to about f/4. Foot zoom isn't always an option though, so if \I had to chose between the 2 lenses, I would go for the 24-70 and that's what stays in the bag when weight's an issue with the 50mm staying at home. IF I think I may need the extra light grabbing that the f/1.8 offers though, I'll sacrifice my back and take both.
Click to expand...



yeah ! KR is fun ! don't forget that he's just a guy that has a website, he's not a pro by any means.

p.s. best is to get 50mm f1.4 , not that much of a price difference. well - 100% but still - cheap. 50mm f1.8 it's nice , let's say it's better than kit lens , any of them. I don't like the bokeh (well, actually I hated it) , and at 1.8 it's not sharp. it's good at 2.8 . and the 24-70mm is good at 2.4 .
 
Nod said:
Safest bet is to ignore KR until you know enough to sort out the BS from the reality.
Click to expand...

At which point you won't need to go to his site to get realistic opinions anyway.

So, just ignore "Saint Ken", job done. :)
 
desantnik said:
The IQ is definitely better on the 24-70 - it has extra low dispersion elements (for CA control) and nano coating for flare control too.

And thats before you start to talk about pleasing bokeh and colour rendition... oh and AFS!

Funnily enough the nasty fifty is not as good as one of the holy trinity...
Click to expand...

what is the holy trinity ?
 
I have the AF 50mm f1.8 D (and a couple of E series) plus the AFS 50mm f1.4G. It would be interesting to do a head to head with the f1.8, both f1.4s and the 24-70 @50mm......
 
I know, I bought all three in Feb along with 2 D700's...

Who cares! Go out and take pictures :)

Sorry, I'm in a frivilous mood :)
 
AliB said:
I know, I bought all three in Feb along with 2 D700's...

Who cares! Go out and take pictures :)

Sorry, I'm in a frivilous mood :)
Click to expand...

I'm just jealous, I only have one D700 and one leg of the holy tripod (24-70) ! I'm getting close with the 80-200 f2.8 but it's like dating the ugly sister....
 
cowasaki said:
I'm just jealous, I only have one D700 and one leg of the holy tripod (24-70) ! I'm getting close with the 80-200 f2.8 but it's like dating the ugly sister....
Click to expand...

for what is worth I sold the 14-24 as it didn't get enough use - but the other two .....wow
 
It's my most used lens Darren, does about 70% of my work and I love it!

Then it's the 70-200mm. It's still superb but I did also rate the Canon 2.8IS. This one is a bit smaller but by heck these Nikons weigh a lot! It just does what it says on the tin and gets on with the work with no fuss.

The 14-24 does come out to play too. Shooting rooms at a wedding and first dance from an elevated position gives me something that Uncle Bob can't often do. Then there are the fireworks and venues at night....

I'm lucky that I just got hold of an 85mm f1.4 thanks to Cannockwolf and I've not shot much with it yet but I have a trip to Scotland planned in a couple of weeks and I'm trying to put together a shoot up on the North coast. Just having trouble convincing anyone to take their clothes off. I think they are all blue up there!
 
The 70-200 is definitely on my shopping list for Christmas. When I will sell my 80-200 f2.8. The 24-70 is virtually welded to my camera but the 70-200 would probably be better in a lot of situations.
 
I have the 50 1.4, just the four to go now.

24-70
70-200
85 1.4
14-24

In that order.
 
So...if you've got the funds 24-70. Job done !
 
Dman said:
I have the 50 1.4, just the four to go now.

24-70
70-200
85 1.4
14-24

In that order.
Click to expand...

I would try the 85mm 1.4 against a 70-200. The 85mm 1.4 is the D model and if it is equivalent to the 50mm f1.4 D then the quality is no better than the 24-70 with that in mind the 85mm 1.4D is likely to be only as good as the 70-200 which means that you will have no need for it!
 
I think the construction is different though Darren. The 85mm has loads of blades in it so you don't get hexagonal bokeh. It's why it's called the cream machine :)

See, I'm learning all this Nikon speak lol
 
AliB said:
I think the construction is different though Darren. The 85mm has loads of blades in it so you don't get hexagonal bokeh. It's why it's called the cream machine :)

See, I'm learning all this Nikon speak lol
Click to expand...

To be honest the AF 50mm f1.4 and AF 85mm f1.4 are two lenses I have never even had in my hands. I was going to buy both of them but the 24-70 scuppered the 85mm f1.4 and the AFS 50mm f1.4G replaced the AF 50mm f1.4D (I got a £50 voucher from Nikon with my D700 so it actually worked out £10 cheaper for the AFS than the AF!). The boketh of the AFS 50mm is lovely really really nice but by the time I can afford the 85mm f1.4 there will no doubt be an AFS 85mm f1.4G anyway! (I want the 70-200 next at all cost!) Spending £3500 on the studio and studio lighting has seriously dented my funds!! I've actually got one less lens than I had before having sold my Sigma 20mm f1.8 which was a lovely lens too but too close to the 24-70 for me.
 
Naith said:
Thanks. I'm hankering after a D700 but don't want to drop so much on the 24-70
Click to expand...

how dare you deny your D700 a 24-70mm :nono:
 
just out of interest now that the 70-200mm has a v2 is that the 'holier than thou' trinity?
 
cowasaki said:
The AFS 24-70 f2.8G just nudges the AF f1.8 D, but is about the same as the AFS f1.4 G.

I have all three!
Click to expand...

Thats interesting... Love the 1.4AFS but at times would like less and more zoom, and often moving feet is not an option. So would you say that at 50mm obviously, it is impossible to tell which lens took the pic?

I know the 24-70 'only' goes to f2.8, but I rarely go below that anyway.
 
cambsno said:
Thats interesting... Love the 1.4AFS but at times would like less and more zoom, and often moving feet is not an option. So would you say that at 50mm obviously, it is impossible to tell which lens took the pic?

I know the 24-70 'only' goes to f2.8, but I rarely go below that anyway.
Click to expand...

Unless you need f1.4 for some reason (it's nice to have it) then you normally shoot at maybe f6.3 or thereabouts. At that aperture then there is nothing in it.
 
I've got the 50 f/1.8, but I haven't used it since picking up the old Helios 44-2 58mm f/2.

I've got the 70-200 f/2.8 VR and love it. I'll be picking up the 24-70 f/2.8 at some point, but I won't be bothering with the 12-24; the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 does me just fine.
 
cambsno said:
Thats interesting... Love the 1.4AFS but at times would like less and more zoom, and often moving feet is not an option.
Click to expand...

Sometimes even if moving feet is an option, it's not necessarily the RIGHT option with any given focal length.

Moving closer and shooting at 24mm or moving further back and shooting at 70mm, while framing to get your subject the same size in your shot has very different effects on what you see in the background.

Unless you've got several primes of varying lengths to take the place of the 24-70, you don't have that versatility and creative freedom.
 
boyfalldown said:
for what is worth I sold the 14-24 as it didn't get enough use - but the other two .....wow
Click to expand...

I did exactly the same and now use an older 17-35 f/2.8 in its place...:lol:

To get back to the original question - I found that by "pixel-peeptm" method, the 24-70 was easily as sharp as both my 50mm f/1.4 and my 85mm f/1.4 at equivalent focal lengths and apertures.
 
Arkady said:
I did exactly the same and now use an older 17-35 f/2.8 in its place...:lol:

To get back to the original question - I found that by "pixel-peeptm" method, the 24-70 was easily as sharp as both my 50mm f/1.4 and my 85mm f/1.4 at equivalent focal lengths and apertures.
Click to expand...

I'm dying to know how you know your 24-70 is as sharp as your 85 at the same focal length :lol:

keep my eyes open for the 17-35 as well, but not in a great rush, 24mm seems wide enough for most of what I cover
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm dying to know how you know your 24-70 is as sharp as your 85 at the same focal length :lol:
Click to expand...

See... this is what comes of having to drive to work at 05.30 every day and then posting before I've finished my first two cups of coffee...:gag:

I meant to say that it's as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 and sharper than the 35mm f/2...

The 85mm f/1.4 was compared against the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-I when I did all the checks recently after upgrading (and buying my own lenses to replace the issued ones thaat went back to Stores last week).


More coffee now before I admit to starting the Reichstag fire or something....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top