standard zoom for Nikon FX advice please

AchimT

AchimT

Messages
340
Edit My Images
No
I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 D, and the 24-85mm f2.8-4 D zoom. Plus a 28-200 tele which I never use.

I'd like to replace the 24-85 zoom with a better zoom lens - sharp, excellent image quality.

I've been looking at the Tamron 24-70, the Nikon 24-70, the Nikon 24-120 and a few others, but each of them has its downsides.

Even comparing lots of photos shot with these lenses was only partially conclusive.

Originally I wanted the Tamron. But after reading a few reviews, and comparing images, it seems that the Tamron is indeed very sharp, but mainly in the center 35% of the image area. Further to the left or right, the sharpness seems to substantially decrease across all focus/aperture combinations.

Overall, the Nikon 24-70 seems to take the pictures which look the sharpest of the bunch, because it keeps the largest area of the image sharp. A review on Photography Life says the 24-120 is on par with it, but looking at actual photos, I have a different opinion.

The Nikon seems to have heavy CA, but mainly in the corners - is that true? I couldn't find that out.

Also, there are so many lenses out there, I just don't know which other lenses I should have a look at. 24-120 or 24-85 would be great, but IQ is more important to me that maximising reach.

I also know the focus area is overlapping that of my Sigma, but I'm not someone for changing lenses in the field. I'll only ever take one lens with me, depending on what I am planning to shoot on this day.

Right now, my head is buzzing with information and I don't know what's the best lens for me.

Can anyone here please add to the confusion ;) and help me out with either hard facts or personal experience?

Is the best option for me among these three lenses? Or should I look at another lens too?

Thanks in advance for all comments!
 
Last edited:
I got the 24-120 f4 after Gramps recommended it. Was a toss up between that and the 24-70. The vr and extra focal length swung it for me in the end. Yes I would have loved that 2.8 for bokeh but the VR makes up for the low light situations.
These are both wide open at f4.


Bath Street performer drink by Speedy349, on Flickr


Bath Abbey Bible by Speedy349, on Flickr

I am sure the 24-70 is sharper but personally I love this lens.
 
I'm having a similar dilemma but have at least been able to eliminate the 24-120 as I often shoot in low light. Ideally I'd like to try both, side by side. I'm not too worried by CA's as they are easy to fix in PP and yes the CA's show more at the edges which I believe is fairly typical. I've played with the Nikon 24-70 at work and it is built like the proverbial brick outhouse! The AF is just about instant too. I like the idea of having VR (VC in Tamron terms) but until I cna test or p;ay with the Tamron I'm a bit like you - confused! :shrug:

Apologies for the not very helpful post :shake:
 
Thank you Speedy136 for the images and the recommendation. I'd also love to have 120. As a young man, I always dreamt of a 135mm (they don't seem to make that focus length anymore) and that was pretty much good enough for everything, so 24-120 would definitely cover everything I may ever need.

OTOH, I think this 120 is, in terms of sharpness, comparable to my 24-85, and I'd like to get something a bit sharper.

Paul - don't apologize, it helps the morale to see that I'm not the only one who's lost in the jungle ;)
 
Used to have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 but chopped it in against a Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR. I used to have the older variable aperture 24-120 but wasn't that impressed with it but am with the newer version. I don't miss the extra stop that f/2.8 used to give me - I'm not into shallow DoF and the D700 and D800 both have such good AF and high ISO capability that they don't need the extra light.
 
AchimT said:
The Nikon seems to have heavy CA, but mainly in the corners - is that true? I couldn't find that out.
Click to expand...


For what it's worth, I own a 24-70 f2.8, and yes the CA is pretty bad at some focal lengths, especially in the corners. I always shoot RAW though, so this is completely correctable in post, and the sharpness and speed more than make up for it.
 
I bought a Tamron 28-75 non VC after selling my 28-70 Nikon,I wanted to downsize.The IQ is comparable and I don`t see any ca or any huge drop in sharpness across the frame.

They are a lot cheaper as well and a helluva lot lighter.
 
Thanks for the advice, guys.

I have no prob with CA, as it is correctable. I just want a sharp lens.

Pookeyhead, I assume you have access to the 24-120 as well. Would you say the 24-70 is noticeably sharper? In know, on Dxomark it says it is, but I've found the Dxomark sharpness numbers to not be really conclusive. I wonder how they measure this. Because my personal visual impression of images shot with the 24-70 is that they are sharper than those shot using a Tamron 24-70 (which at Dxomark is the king of the hill in terms of sharpness).
 
Had the Tamron but now have the Nikon, the 24-70 is a brilliant lens. VR not an issue for me, the extra length would be nice though.
 
Thanks for all the info guys. I think I'll probably go for the Nikon 24-70, it seems to be the safest bet. I could go all prime too (Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG HSM (have it already), Nikon 50mm f1.8 G (currently have the D but I think the G is better), Nikon 85mm f1.8 G), but I just can't see myself changing lenses in the field.
 
Guys, thanks again for your advice.

After reading some reviews on Photography Life, I concluded that maybe it would be the best for me - considering my expectations, usage profile and usage situations - to jettison the idea of buying a zoom, but go with Primes instead. I'm very keen on IQ, and it seemed according to the reviews on Photography Life, that Primes are better in terms of IQ - of course finding the proper shooting distance is sometimes difficult.

But they are small, cheaper than a really good Nikon zoom, the IQ is probably still a tad better, and the camera remains a lot smaller an easier to handle with one of these primes installed, than with the Nikon 24-70 for example.

As a by-product of my research, I discovered that AAMOF Dxomark (whose 'sharpness' figure in the overview I have found to be entirely unusable as it only refers to the achievable optimum with a lens, i.e. the very best value a lens can achieve in one point, with one aperture (and focus length, for zooms). It does not describe how the entire image looks, and it does not describe what the images look like when NOT shot at that specific aperture (and focus length, for zooms)) offers more information than I was aware of.

AAMOF, they also have the Measurements tab, which contains a lot more detailed information in quite easy to interpret charts. Hence, Dxomark has much more detailed information on lenses than I thought, AAMOF I find it quite good, once you look behind that 'buzz value' on the front page of a lens assessment.

Anyway, I already had the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM, a very good prime. Previous experience had shown that for all sorts of outdoor shots, I use that focus length a lot even with the zoom I have. So I decided to get the Nikon 50mm 1.8 G, and the Nikon 85mm 1.8 G. I'll see how that covers my requirements. I still have my 24-85 zoom for situations where a zoom is simply better.

But the camera with the 50mm attached, and the 85mm and 35mm in the bag, is still less bulky than the camera with the 24-70 Nikon attached, partially because the bulk is distributed across 3 items instead of one. So I'll buy myself a camera bag now, and see how good my decision was...
 
Last edited:
Enjoy your choice(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top