Which Nikon FX standard zoom lens?

Phiggys said:
I'm guessing it's the 24-85mm 3.5/4.5 VR your looking at ?
I would be very surprised if your not pleased with it my mate uses his on his D800 for weddings and studio work with some stunning results :)
Click to expand...

I recently bought a used D800 and a new 24-85 and I am thoroughly enjoying the results.
I am going to buy a 70-200mm f2.8 today (can't justify the extra expense of the vrII version).
 
Solo man said:
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 you can have a loan of if you want to give it a go?.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and the Nikon 24-120 f4.
They all have their uses... the 28-75 is much smaller and lighter, but I'm not as keen as the way the colours render sometimes, but it is a good lens, I do like the 24-70 f2.8, but it is big and heavy. I like the focal length of the 24-120, but.... I like shooting shallow depth of field a lot...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'd missed this very generous offer. I'll get back to you when I get myself organised.
 
Big and Heavy....not really .....all depends on what you get used to, but I have used one since 2009 and its a great all round lens, particularly on a D3/D3X on which it balances well.

Not sure it needs the VR of the new version, but it does mean that some originals will start showing up more frequently in the S/H market.
 
In case anyone is still following this... I've initially gone for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8g. The 135 f2 DC and a 50mm f1.4 may follow in time.

I did a lot of research and may as well share my notes here in case they're useful to someone else. Of course the real proof is in the using of them; we'll see how I get on.

It came down to a choice between the Tamron 24-70, or the Nikon 24-120 plus a wide standard prime and wide portrait lens. I've actually gone for the Tamron plus a 85mm f1.8G. I won't bother with a 50mm for now.

It won't be long before I succumb to the 135 DC. If I wasn't tempted by the 135 then I'd probably go for one of the 85mm f1.4 lenses now. I'd also have the 200 like a shot if funds permitted.

My notes:

Standard Zooms

Tamron is not quite has sharp as the Nikon when zoomed in
Tamron slightly more prone to flare when bright lights included in the frame
Tamron has very slightly more oniony bokeh
Tamron sharper wide open and a tiny bit brighter
Tamron is less heavy
Focusing is about the same

Both have bokeh way nicer than the Nikon 24-120 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8
The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 performs significantly better than the Tamron 28-75 on full frame.
The old Nikon 35-70 f2.8 is cheap but has no stabilisation, is slow to focus and is prone to flare with off-axis lighting.

Then I looked at 50mm primes too:

1.8D vs 1.8G
Nikon 1.8D is one of the few to go to f22 and is cheapest
The 1.8G has much nicer bokeh than the 1.8D, is faster to focus and is sharper, especially at the edges.

1.4G vs 1.8G
The 1.4G is slow to focus and not very sharp wide open, but generally sharper overall.
The 1.4G is better in the f2-f4 range than the 1.8G

1.4G vs 1.4D
The 1.4G has better bokeh than the 1.4D
The 1.4D is sharper and faster to focus than the 1.4G

1.4D vs 1.8G
At f1.8, the 1.4D has rounder but edgier bokeh, not a lot in it.
At f2.8, the bokeh is very obviously angular on the f1.4
At f4, the 1.8G has much nicer bokeh

Sigma

1.4 is big, sharper at 1.4 than the Nikon 1.4G, better bokeh, slightly worse focusing but actually very similar to the f1.4G
Art variant is way more expensive and way sharper than the non-Art model, bokeh v similar to non-Art variant

The 58mm f1.4 looks very appealing indeed but is most pricey. The 1.8G seems to be the clear winner.

And finally.. I looked at >85mm portrait primes including

Tamron 90 mm f2.8 (macro)
Tokin 100mm f2.8
Sigma 105 f2.8
Nikkor 105 f2
Sigma 85mm f1.4 (non-art)
Nikkor 85 f1.8G
Nikon 85 f1.4G
Nikon 135 f2 DC
Nikon 200 f2

I made fewer notes at this point but it was very clear that the Nikon 85mm 1.8G is the best value,

(sources include Tony Northrup, DigitalRev, DxoMark, CameraLabs, Matt Granger, @kman and others)
 
juggler said:
Thanks, I'd missed that one and clearly need to do some more research. And perhaps cancel the Nikon 85.:facepalm:

edit: I hadn't missed it after all, just dismissed it for now as being manual focus.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, for sudio use and ther apertures used its good enough - but then the f1.8g was pretty awesome!
 
juggler said:
Thanks, all. My inclination is to go with the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and add to / replace it when I start to notice the limits of the cheap option. fwiw it's DxO scores compare favourably with my current Olympus zoom so it can't be all bad.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that DxO scores MEAN something?

The essential quality of a lens is surely how it 'renders', which is a function of how we apprehend its product emotionally. Can this be measured? Hardly. Can it be spoken about? Yes. But seriously - you've got to try a lens to know what you think of it. I don't know of any shortcuts to this!
 
droj said:
Are you suggesting that DxO scores MEAN something?

The essential quality of a lens is surely how it 'renders', which is a function of how we apprehend its product emotionally. Can this be measured? Hardly. Can it be spoken about? Yes. But seriously - you've got to try a lens to know what you think of it. I don't know of any shortcuts to this!
Click to expand...

Of course it means something. It's a measure of the easily measurable physical properties of a lens, weighted to align with DxO's idea of what constitutes human perception.
And of course it's not the whole story - it obviously excludes purely objective details like quality of bokeh and flare - but there's no way I'm going to try every possible lens within a range to find the one I like best. I can make use of the reports of others who have done both subjective and objective research of their own. To repeat all of that would be daft.

juggler said:
sources include Tony Northrup, DigitalRev, DxoMark, CameraLabs, Matt Granger, @kman and others
Click to expand...

Then I can find a lens which is likely to meet my needs. It may not be the very best option for me in a given class but really, the difference between what I've chosen and the best possible is likely to be small.

And if I don't like a given lens then I'll replace it - but only once I've identified what I don't like about it. If I can't do that then how could I possibly find one which did it better?
 
im not sure if you've actually put down the money yet, but for what it's worth I have the Nikkor 85 1.8 g and its a superb lens. Not just "for the money" but for any money. The only thing i wouldn't use it for is fast action like sports, as it's a bit slow to lock focus.
Another lens to look at is the Sigma 24-105 Art. In my opinion its better in every way than the Nikkor 24-120.. Just a couple o' thoughts to confuse things even more.
 
Nicholas Mitchell said:
im not sure if you've actually put down the money yet, but for what it's worth I have the Nikkor 85 1.8 g and its a superb lens. Not just "for the money" but for any money. The only thing i wouldn't use it for is fast action like sports, as it's a bit slow to lock focus.
Another lens to look at is the Sigma 24-105 Art. In my opinion its better in every way than the Nikkor 24-120.. Just a couple o' thoughts to confuse things even more.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. already bought the Tamron, the 85 1.8G and a 50 1.8 on the way. That'll just about cover everything I need for now; the 135 will follow eventually.
 
I'd have to say the 24-70/2.8 non-VR. The release of the VR model should reduce the prices a bit. You'll be using it on a D750 so VR won't be much of an issue. It can give shallower DOF than anything you've ever used on MFT while remaining very sharp. And it's a lens you will never have a real cause to replace (except maybe weight).

Edit: I guess I didn't read far enough before responding.
 
Last edited:
photogwannabe said:
I hope you'll be happy with your Tammy. I have that lens and I think it's great. Bonus- quite a bit cheaper than the Nikon version and the VR version wasn't out at that point. Now it's probably half the price of the equivalent VR 24-70 Nikon.
Click to expand...

First impressions.. it's a heck of a lot bigger than I'm used to but not unmanageable and vignetting is more of an issue then I was expecting - but easily corrected for. Otherwise no complaints at all - nice and sharp, great bokeh & focuses really close, which is a bonus. Not sure how effective the VR is but then I'm coming from an Olympus which has amazing in-body stabilization.
 
If I was you i would go for the Nikon, although more expensive you will now you wont run into issues. The value holds up really well too if you want to sell it later
 
juggler said:
Issues? Anything in particular to look out for?
The Nikon VR variant is a LOT more expensive.
Anyway, if you read the thread you'll see I've already bought the Tamron.
Click to expand...
I apologise Simon that I posted so late to the thread, I'll be more careful next time. Tamrons are good lenses, but the quality control at least years ago wasn't very consistent, at least in my case. I ran into focusing problems with a copy of a 24-70 that I bought once. I used to work as a photographer in cruise ships, so all of the weddings on ships were very restricted in time. So accurate focusing was paramount to me to get the right shot in a small window of time. Other colleagues bought the same lens and had no issues at all, with great images and other ones had similar problems. I haven't bought any Tamron lately, but I always check the new lenses they release, the new SP line looks great, would love to try it, they have had to up their game since Sigma released the ART line.
 
chinotop74 said:
I apologise Simon that I posted so late to the thread, I'll be more careful next time. Tamrons are good lenses, but the quality control at least years ago wasn't very consistent, at least in my case. I ran into focusing problems with a copy of a 24-70 that I bought once. I used to work as a photographer in cruise ships, so all of the weddings on ships were very restricted in time. So accurate focusing was paramount to me to get the right shot in a small window of time. Other colleagues bought the same lens and had no issues at all, with great images and other ones had similar problems. I haven't bought any Tamron lately, but I always check the new lenses they release, the new SP line looks great, would love to try it, they have had to up their game since Sigma released the ART line.
Click to expand...

thanks .. focusing is spot on so far.
 
Ca I ask where did you go into details about Olympus OM-D E-M5, please? I'm after a sort of compact camera and I struggle to make a choice as I had DSLR so far. Olympus is on my list but I have to do my research first. Thanks
 
I use the 24-70 f2.8G ED.

It's a great lens in many respects. Fast, well built, reliable, flare resistant even without the hood. I can shoot straight into the sun and have minimal flare and never get any off axis flare, at any focal length. It's sharp too.

It is NOT the perfect lens people make it out to be though. It suffers from chromatic aberration quite badly (not much of a problem if you shoot raw) and perhaps the big one is field curvature at the short end. This can't even be fixed by stopping down like most other defects can be.

It's still a great lens, but I do wish people would stop speaking of it as if it's perfect. No zoom lens is.

I'd still recommend one though if you have the cash. If I had to replace mine though, I honestly think I'd replace it with the preposterously named Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC ( I had to look the name up again, because no human being on earth can actually remember what the damned thing is called). Why? While it's not as well built as the Nikkor, and has slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm, and CA problems too - the fact is, it's optically superior across more of it's range, and wide open, and that, at the end of the day is all that matters to me. If you shot weddings or press etc, the tank like construction of the Nikkor may be required, but for everyone else, I just think the Tamron is better, and I'm saying this as an owner of the Nikkor... not Tamron.


Also... be careful of asking for gear advice in here. You'd think it would be the ideal place, but far too many people just recommend what they have, and far too many people think they're gear is better than everyone else's gear because pride of ownership comes into play, especially when it's expensive gear. For me, all this stuff is just a bunch of tools with absolutely no status attached, and I've used almost everything there is to use, and I don't care what anyone says... the Tamron is a better lens. I'm not saying the Nikkor is bad.. it's not. If it was BAD I'd have got rid of it by now. It's good. If all you care about is optical quality, the Tamron is better though.


Both suffer badly with CA though compared to primes.... the price you pay for fast mid range zooms.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I use the 24-70 f2.8G ED.

It's a great lens in many respects. Fast, well built, reliable, flare resistant even without the hood. I can shoot straight into the sun and have minimal flare and never get any off axis flare, at any focal length. It's sharp too.

It is NOT the perfect lens people make it out to be though. It suffers from chromatic aberration quite badly (not much of a problem if you shoot raw) and perhaps the big one is field curvature at the short end. This can't even be fixed by stopping down like most other defects can be.

It's still a great lens, but I do wish people would stop speaking of it as if it's perfect. No zoom lens is.

I'd still recommend one though if you have the cash. If I had to replace mine though, I honestly think I'd replace it with the preposterously named Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC. Why? While it's not as well built as the Nikkor, and has slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm, the fact is, it's optically superior, and that, at the end of the day is all that matters to me. If you shot weddings or press etc, the tank like construction of the Nikkor may be required, but for everyone else, I just think the Tamron is better, and I'm saying this as an owner of the Nikkor... not Tamron.


Also... be careful of asking for advice in here. You'd think it would be the ideal place, but far too many people just recommend what they have, and far too many people think they're gear is better than everyone else's gear because pride of ownership comes into play, especially when it's expensive gear. For me, all this stuff is just a bunch of tools with absolutely no status attached, and I've used almost everything there is to use, and I don't care what anyone says... the Tamron is a better lens. I'm not saying the Nikkor is bad.. it's not. If it was BAD I'd have got rid of it by now. It's good. If all you care about is optical quality, the Tamron is better though.


Both suffer badly with CA though.... the price you pay for fast mid range zooms.
Click to expand...

Have you used the new VR 24-70 Nikon?

Just curious as to if its worth the extra?
 
Sir SR said:
Have you used the new VR 24-70 Nikon?

Just curious as to if its worth the extra?
Click to expand...


Not yet... which is why I haven't commented on it. Looks good though. From what I can see from test images it seems to fix the short end field curvature issue... apparently, but it's questionable as to whether the price makes it worthwhile over the Tamron. VR may be useful at the long end if you shoot a lot in low light hand held. The fact that it exists at all does vindicate mine, and others' opinions that the 24-70 2.8G ED does indeed have issues that a lens of that price shouldn't really have.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I use the 24-70 f2.8G ED.

If all you care about is optical quality, the Tamron is better though.
Click to expand...

I care about optical quality and price. The Tamron was less than half the price of the equivalent Nikon.

fwiw that was the result of Tony Northrup's direct comparison, too, and he's a reasonably reliable tester. At the moment I'm not convinced I'm going to keep it. I'm finding that I'm mainly using the 50mm & 85mm primes I bought at the same time.
 
kokolino23 said:
Ca I ask where did you go into details about Olympus OM-D E-M5, please? I'm after a sort of compact camera and I struggle to make a choice as I had DSLR so far. Olympus is on my list but I have to do my research first. Thanks
Click to expand...

It's a great camera and it's taken me a long time to outgrow it. The mk1 is unbelievably cheap second hand now. This post lists the negatives, none of the positives so don't be too put off:

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-d750-or-sony-a7ii.607519/#post-7122362
 
just get the tried and tested "wholly Trinity" Nikons - the 24 70 and the 70 200

Buy used - they last forever
 
juggler said:
And a body for each?
Click to expand...

Ideally of course (Weddings)

For portraits though, I find changing lenses just means I 'think' in terms of the 35mm for a while then switch to 'thinking' 85mm. Unless you really can't make your mind up from shot to shot what focal length you need then its hardly a problem

Dave
 
BillN_33 said:
just get the tried and tested "wholly Trinity" Nikons - the 24 70 and the 70 200

Buy used - they last forever
Click to expand...


Why? The Tamron is better and cheaper.
 
BTW.. there's a Sigma ART mid range zoom coming out soon... so maybe it's best to buy nothing yet.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why? The Tamron is better and cheaper.
Click to expand...

that may be the case if you are as "expert" as you are and obviously Tamron is built better, lasts longer and is a far better investment

but for simple morons, sorry mortals, who just press the shutter and hope, the Nikon is a no brainer
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
that may be the case if you are as "expert" as you are and obviously Tamron is built better, lasts longer and is a far better investment

but for simple morons, sorry mortals, who just press the shutter and hope, the Nikon is a no brainer
Click to expand...


But the Tamron is not built better, and is cheaper and almost certainly will not last longer. The Nikon is £1300. The Tamron is £500.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But the Tamron is not built better, and is cheaper and almost certainly will not last longer. The Nikon is £1300. The Tamron is £500.
Click to expand...

DSLR-wise I have always blindly bought Nikon with one venture into Sigma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top