Which Nikon FX standard zoom lens?

BillN_33 said:
maybe I should have moved to Canon
Click to expand...


That's not what I mean. I mean just buying Nikon lenses "blindly". Many 3rd party lenses are much superior to some Nikkor lenses, and some Nikkor lenses are actually pretty crap.
 
Pookeyhead said:
some Nikkor lenses are actually pretty crap.
Click to expand...

I have never found that

I quite like the following

50mm f1.8
50mm f1.4
55mm f1.2 manual
55mm f3.5
35mm OC f2
Nikon 70 200 f2.8VR
300mm f4 AFS
300mm f4 PF
105mm f2.8VR Micro
600mm f4

the 500mm f1.8E is also not a bad lens

just to mention a few

but who am I to say - I have just shot Nikon since 1970 with the Nikon F

but I bow to your "expert" opinion

I quite like my Nikon F ..... but who am i to say ............... Tamron for ever ... what a load of crap

pokie.jpg
 
Last edited:
Having started out with DX on a tightish budget i went with the Tamron 17-50 vc. Nice enough lens but i eventually ended up swapping it for the Nikon 17-55. I lost VR but i gained ultra fast AF which was more accurate and it also focused better in dark settings (boxing). Now with FX i have the equivalent Nikkor, the 24-70. It's simply awesome. Build quality and AF speed is sublime. I believe the Tamron scores better in tests but having never used it i can't give a real world comparison. The AF alone is worth it for me, it is a chunky lump of a thing though.
 
BillN_33 said:
I have never found that

but who am i to say ............... Tamron for ever ... what a load of crap
Click to expand...

But if you never try anything else, you'd never realise. Saying you've shot Nikon since 1976 means nothing as ALL you've shot is Nikon. It's like people saying in defence of their driving, that they've been driving for 30 years.... utterly meaningless, as they could easily have been driving really badly for 30 years.

You've never used the Tamron lens in question.. I have. It's better than the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G ED. It just is. Without using it, how can you say I'm wrong unless you are operating on blind faith and brand loyalty... which makes you an ad man's dream and rather stupid.


BillN_33 said:
but I bow to your "expert" opinion
Click to expand...


So you should... because it is.

Unlike you I don't just assume Nikon lenses are the best and will actually try other stuff.

I'm slightly baffled why you mention the Nikon F or post a picture of it... but then again, you always do make rather odd, out of context comments.

Clearly you're just a Nikon fanboy... although I use the word "boy" in it's loosest possible context. You'd never accept anything other than Nikon because you're only interested in cameras.

They're just tools. You buy what does the job best. There are loads of Sigma lenses that wipe the floor with Nikkors, but you'd rather bury your head in the sand, compromise your images, just so you can have a Nikkor lens... like anyone gives a crap when looking at your images.

Up to you... I tried... but you're stubborn. (shrug).
 
Last edited:
A warning has been given for this post
Tried anything else???

I have a few of Leicas and a range of lens - Leica and Zeiss

a range of Olympus film .... and Canon ... which I still use

A couple of M 4/3 and a range of lens

a few compacts

I am not a Nikon fanboy in any way ...... the brand does not really matter ........ I am behind the camera and that what matters to me - the image and what I see and is disclosed to me

I have had Tamron, Sigma and many others

MOD EDIT: personal attack removed and warning issued. No more personal attacks or it's time off...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A warning has been given for this post
First you say this....

BillN_33 said:
DSLR-wise I have always blindly bought Nikon with one venture into Sigma
Click to expand...

Then you say this.

BillN_33 said:
I have had Tamron, Sigma and many others
Click to expand...

Make your mind up... which is it?

BillN_33 said:
you really have no idea apart from an academic point of view
Click to expand...

can this crap and save it for the equipment and bird forums where people are only interested cameras

MOD EDIT: PERSONAL INSULT ETC REMOVED
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A warning has been given for this post
MOD EDIT : YET ANOTHER PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED AND WARNING ISSUED
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pookeyhead said:
That's not what I mean. I mean just buying Nikon lenses "blindly". Many 3rd party lenses are much superior to some Nikkor lenses, and some Nikkor lenses are actually pretty crap.
Click to expand...

Maybe but not in my experience. Tamron 28-75 was ok, but the nikon 24-70 is so much better wide open, yes its great value as cost me a quarter of the nikon but its not as good. The tamron 90mm was ok, but too slow to focus. Siggy 10-20 was ok but nikon 16-35 is better (and should be as it cost more).
 
BillN_33 said:
MOD EDIT: REDACTED
Click to expand...
There was no sign that the original comment was supposed to be 'humour' you're just trolling this thread now. Spouting lies and slinging insults.

It's not very grown up is it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cambsno said:
Maybe but not in my experience. Tamron 28-75 was ok, but the nikon 24-70 is so much better wide open, yes its great value as cost me a quarter of the nikon but its not as good. The tamron 90mm was ok, but too slow to focus. Siggy 10-20 was ok but nikon 16-35 is better (and should be as it cost more).
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the 28-75. I'm discussing the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8. It's better than the Nikkor, and cheaper. Use them both, and I'm not biased because I do not own the Tamron... I own the Nikkor.

Putting things into perspective though.... no one will be able to tell what lens was used on your shots unless they have a shot of a lens test chart from each lens at their disposal, and furthermore, no one will give a crap. A great photo is a great photo.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not referring to the 28-75. I'm discussing the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8. It's better than the Nikkor, and cheaper. Use them both, and I'm not biased because I do not own the Tamron... I own the Nikkor.

Putting things into perspective though.... no one will be able to tell what lens was used on your shots unless they have a shot of a lens test chart from each lens at their disposal, and furthermore, no one will give a crap. A great photo is a great photo.
Click to expand...
No. You said many 3rd party lenses are better than Nikon. In my experience I disagree.
 
cambsno said:
No. You said many 3rd party lenses are better than Nikon. In my experience I disagree.
Click to expand...

David didn't say that. You should really quote what he said, and not what you think he said. Post 81 is the relevant one :)
 
cambsno said:
No. You said many 3rd party lenses are better than Nikon. In my experience I disagree.
Click to expand...


No I didn't. I said many third party lenses are better than SOME Nikkor lenses. Some Nikkor lenses are utter rubbish. You ever used the 14mm f2.8D ED? Jesus.. what a piece of ****! The Samyang equivalent kicks it into next week. The 20mm f2.8D is pretty crap and there's been no prime lens to replace that yet. In fact, there's a not insignificant number of questionable Nikkor lenses when you consider the price. Most are incredibly good, yes... which is no surprise, but to blindly buy anything with Nikkor written on it assuming you're buying the best is just the behaviour of either a fanboy, or someone a bit thick.
 
I bought the Nikon 24-70mm non VR lens some time ago, the VR version had not been released back then. I don't think having the VR is worth it, depending on which camera it is fitted to of course. I find with the Nikon D800 with the MB-D12 Nikon grip I can hold the camera steady. My guess it is the weight that helps as I don't have the steadiest if hands by any means.
 
Right folks - no more bickering - Thread tidied, warnings issued, and here's some advice for the protagonists...

David, if you keep getting someone following you around slinging insults, put them on ignore, and report them to us.

Bill - when you come back from your latest spell on the naughty step, stop being a tool, stay away from this thread, and stop posting random trolling posts and taking arguments into other threads. You were lucky to survive the cull in the Birding Forum where we got rid of the last bunch of idiots... don't push your luck, consider this your final warning.

Now, as you all were - back to discussing lenses - I'm going out to actually enjoy the sunshine on what promises to be the only decent weather day of the bank holiday weekend.
 
Every time anyone discusses gear in here, all the wildlife shooters and nerds show up defending their precious brands etc. with levels of pedantry and defensiveness only the truly insecure can muster.

Please bear in mind that better gear does not = better photographs.


While lens A may be better than lens B.... no one actually cares when they look at your photos. Do you even print them? If not, again, who cares? If all you do is post online, then any old piece of crap lens will look absolutely fine. None of the lenses being discussed in here are actually bad. Any of them will work perfectly fine. Just buy what you can afford. Equipment doesn't make a great photograph. What makes a great photograph is what is going on behind, and in front of the camera... the camera is an irrelevance.

If you print big... yes, you need good lenses, otherwise, just buy what you can afford or need... do you need a fast max aperture, then fine... buy one that has one... you need a robust lens because it will get knocked about?.. fine... They're tools.... not prized possessions or status symbols, or an outward show of wealth and prosperity... it's a tool. If you think it's anything other than that... then YOU are a tool :)

@juggler Your work is strong, and you know what you're doing, and it will continue to be no matter what lens you use. It actually, will not make much of a difference at all so long as it's an appropriate tool for the job.


realspeed said:
I bought the Nikon 24-70mm non VR lens some time ago, the VR version had not been released back then. I don't think having the VR is worth it, depending on which camera it is fitted to of course. I find with the Nikon D800 with the MB-D12 Nikon grip I can hold the camera steady. My guess it is the weight that helps as I don't have the steadiest if hands by any means.
Click to expand...

It's not just the same lens with VR... it's an optical redesign to address some of the.. [wait for it Nikon fanboys]... optical problems the non VR had.
 
Last edited:
At 500 quid? Sod that. I'm waiting for a like for like f2.8 replacement at a reasonable price.
 
Pookeyhead said:
At 500 quid? Sod that. I'm waiting for a like for like f2.8 replacement at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
Could be a long wait. f1.8 is Nikon's new 'cheapest' line IMO. The 35/2 seems to have been replaced by a 35/1.8, for example.
 
The o.p has long ago bought the Tamron so this thread is moot.

However as a direct comparison I have owned the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 for a couple of years now. Yes it is a lens that isn't perfect few zoom lenses are. I have thought about selling it a few times as at one point it was a lens that I didn't use a lot but ended up keeping it as a back up to other lenses. A while back maybe a year or so ago I read quite a few reviews saying that the Tamron V.C version was better, a sharper lens and with the excellent Tamron V.C so I decided to pick one up thinking that selling the Nikon would cover the cost and would actually have left me at the time with a few ££££'s left over. The first copy of the Tamron I bought the V.C didn't work at all so fair enough it can happen and I got in touch with the retailer who agreed to swop it out for me, the replacement came and after a bit of testing I found it had severe back focus problems especially at the longer end so again I got in touch with the retailer who offered a replacement or a refund this time I decided to get a refund and purchased another Tamron from a different retailer this one had exactly the same issues with back focusing so again I had to return for a refund. Luckily I had kept the Nikon as I wanted to be sure on the Tamron before letting it go. Unfortunately no amount of adjustment could get it right as when adjusting for back focus at the long end on both resulted in back focus at the short end.

I have seen plenty of others get very good results with the Tamron so no doubt its a nice lens but after 3 attempts at trying to find a good copy I gave up. The Tamron may well be a good lens it may even have a small edge over the Nikon it does have the V.C after all but the Nikon version I have never had any issues with as you would expect. I am not a Nikon fan boy either I also have the Tamron 70-200 V.C which while I don't use so much any more is a lens I still really like and would say is nearly 90% as good as the Nikon equivalent having owned it in the past too.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Could be a long wait. f1.8 is Nikon's new 'cheapest' line IMO. The 35/2 seems to have been replaced by a 35/1.8, for example.
Click to expand...


Probably yeah. I have the 2.8D. It's not fantastic. I used to think it was the bomb until I got the D800E and now it looks a little less than lack lustre. Fact is though... the 12-24 f2.8 is so good, I kind of don't care. I do like having primes for commonly used focal lengths though. If I didn't have the 12-24 then I'd probably be interested, but as it is... not much to be gained.
 
kendo1 said:
David didn't say that. You should really quote what he said, and not what you think he said. Post 81 is the relevant one :)
Click to expand...

I did quote him from post 81 and he did say that - its there in B&W!!!!! Alright, I missed out the word SOME that he used.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Probably yeah. I have the 2.8D. It's not fantastic. I used to think it was the bomb until I got the D800E and now it looks a little less than lack lustre. Fact is though... the 12-24 f2.8 is so good, I kind of don't care. I do like having primes for commonly used focal lengths though. If I didn't have the 12-24 then I'd probably be interested, but as it is... not much to be gained.
Click to expand...

Damn, really keen to get to get a 20mm and was hoping it would be decent - in what way is it not very good? Would rather not fork out for the newer version.
 
cambsno said:
I did quote him from post 81 and he did say that - its there in B&W!!!!! Alright, I missed out the word SOME that he used.
Click to expand...

Fairly important word you missed out though isn't it :) SOME Nikkor lenses are pretty terrible... and SOME 3rd part lenses are fantastic. My point is.. don't assume having Nikkor written on it means it's good.
 
cambsno said:
Damn, really keen to get to get a 20mm and was hoping it would be decent - in what way is it not very good? Would rather not fork out for the newer version.
Click to expand...

Soft, even stopped down, really bad CA at the edges, it vignettes badly wide open and edge softness is not really that acceptable if used on a decent full frame SLR... suffers from coma quite badly wide open too which is important if you do a lot of night time photography as distant lights and stars just become weird shaped blobs towards the edges of the frame.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Soft, even stopped down, really bad CA at the edges, it vignettes badly wide open and edge softness is not really that acceptable if used on a decent full frame SLR... suffers from coma quite badly wide open too which is important if you do a lot of night time photography as distant lights and stars just become weird shaped blobs towards the edges of the frame.
Click to expand...

...but apart form that its good :naughty:
 
cambsno said:
...but apart form that its good :naughty:
Click to expand...

LOL.. actually... that's just a list of reasons it's not great. It's not a BAD lens... and I only noticed the short comings since using it with the D800E, and only because I regularly make large prints. I'm probably making it sounds a LOT worse than it is. But when someone asks you to list it's flaws, it's always gonna sounds worse than it is isn't it?

cambsno said:
Damn, really keen to get to get a 20mm and was hoping it would be decent - in what way is it not very good? Would rather not fork out for the newer version.
Click to expand...

And to answer that.. yes I'd fork out for the newer one if I didn't already have the truly amazing 12-24 2.8G. If you find a good used 20mm f2.8D I'd still buy one though if the price is right.
 
Last edited:
I think sigma do some kind of f2 constant 24-70ish lens, might be worth going for that or any of the 24-70s 2.8 jobbies although I think they're a bit dull as far as lenses go

(cue minions saying is the user that's dull not the lens) :)
 
Dear God, reading through most of this, I think people need to 'MTFU' - anyone who thinks the 24-70 f2.8 on a Nikon body is heavy needs to eat some more Weetabix. It is an all day, everyday carry, with another body wearing a 70-200 on the other shoulder, and then a rucksack or reporter bag with several more lenses and 3x flashs and SU800......I hiked in 12 miles and hiked back out again through the Scottish highlands to do a feature for The Field, I had 500 f4, 300f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, and the 24-70. It is just what is expected, and you are shooting while you are on the move too - walking backwards across the moors eye to the viewfinder. Sometimes setting a shot up, but mostly looking for whatis going to happen, when the clouds will allow a shaft of light through and being in place to catch it as it happens - anticipation it is called.

I cannot believe a photographer thinks a standard zoom f 24-70f2.8 is heavy. That bit of weight is what allows it to shrug off the rough and tumble of everyday life.
 
i'd like to suggest the nikon 24-120mm f4. not quite f2.8 but quick enough for most situations and the extra reach does help
 
Not a fan of mid range zooms but the tamron 24-70 is very sharp and great stabiliser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top