Does Anyone Have This Lens?

[mulester7]

Is there a place you can rent lenses near you? you could try both 17-55 and 24-70 then buy.

.....I doubt it, Mikey....there's a Nikon store in a shopping center close, or there was a couple of years ago, but I'm pretty sure I'm going after the 24-70.....

 

[mulester7]

.....interesting shot, Echosphere, very nice....anyone feel free to make comments about FX vs. DX.....why would an FX picture be better?....is it solely because of the size of the sensor?....hey, I'm after the best shots I can get.....

 

[dpastern]

.....your endorsement means much, Dave.....

You're welcome. I find this site gives good reviews of lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...kkor-af-s-24-70mm-f28g-ed-review--test-report

FM is always a good source of information too:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=337&sort=7&cat=28&page=2

Dave

edit: I meant to also say, look at the MTF charts on the photozone site. They show an excellent set of optics that I can assure you is far better than Canon's offering in the same zoom range. Perhaps a Leica or Carl Zeiss lens might better the Nikon, but at what cost?

 

[Echosphere]

.....interesting shot, Echosphere, very nice....anyone feel free to make comments about FX vs. DX.....why would an FX picture be better?....is it solely because of the size of the sensor?....hey, I'm after the best shots I can get.....

While Mega Pixel used to be a standard of image quality you can only pack so many usable photon sensors for a given physical size.

Bigger sensors mean more photon sensors on it. As simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

 

[moinau]

Have a look at this lens, ask a few questions from some professionals that have used this lens, you might be pleasantly surprised at its capability, and the price... Who knows...
Although the one you are looking at this moment is an excellent lens, but somewhat pricey, and the difference, well only you can tell I suppose.


http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon...929/AF-Zoom-NIKKOR-24-85mm-f%2F2.8-4D-IF.html

 

[dpastern]

While Mega Pixel used to be a standard of image quality you can only pack so many usable photon sensors for a given physical size.

Bigger sensors mean more photon sensors on it. As simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Agreed, but sadly, most people fall for the marketing BS that more [megapixels] is better. It is not. Physics does not change because a companies marketing says it does. I'd really love to say a 8 or 10mp full frame sensor with micro lenses that has 24 bit capability for a much better DR (dynamic range), as well as clean ISO up to 12800. It won't happen for a long time, if ever. Camera manufacturers just don't seem interested in fixing digital's one caveat - DR. How many people honestly and really need more than 8mp in a sensor? I think very few people. Those who argue that they do, are misled imho. Why have working pros sufficed with 6mp and 8mp, successfully selling their images for many years?

I guess it's like the argument of getting a longer telephoto lens. Say, you have a 300mm. You suddenly decide you need a 600mm. Why? I'd say that most people could easily move closer to their subject and negate the need for the 600mm lens, but laziness and a must have attitude mean they take the easy way out. Yes, I know that getting close to your subject is not always possible and sometimes, a longer lens is a blessing. The above is just a quick and dirty example to show what I mean.

Sorry for the long diatribe. There are many things wrong with the digital imaging market imho.

Dave

 

[julian_photo]

So i don't know if you've decided on this yet, however. the 24-70 f2.8 is a killer lens. Yes it made for an full frame camera but thats fine if you're ok with the range being more like the 36-105 equivalent as talked about already. This is one of the sharpest lenes nikon has ever made, shaper and than the 17-55 for sure. Really it comes down to the fact that your lens will be able to resolve more detail than the camera can capture so no worry there. If you can pick up a used one from a trusted source go for it, they are built like tanks. That said if you buy it new and don't like it for some reason you can probably sell it for almost the same price.

And yes i agree with Dpastern that more dynamic range is always good most new pro level cameras are around a 7-9 stop range which is comparable to what slide film is. Also most pros are shooting with cameras that are around 12mp at this point, sure you don't need it but at times it does come in handy. If you are retouching or doing a composite having the extra detail can make it a lot easier at time.

 

[dpastern]

Well most pros are using either a Nikon D3, D3s, D700 or Canon EOS 1D Mark IIn or Mark III from my experience. The Nikons are all 12mp, the Mark IIn is 8mp, the Mark III is 10mp. Those who must have the latest have updated to the Canon 1D Mark IV I guess.

I'd agree that the pro DSLRs with HTP (highlight tone priority) etc, do offer between 7-9 stops, roughly the same as slide film. Print film offers a few more stops on top of this, and it's here where digital falls down imho.

Dave

 

[mulester7]

.....Mikey, I'm pretty sure all I'll ever need is this D200.....

.....well, we need to put that utterance on hold....DPastern/Dave, and Julian_Photo, why would you desire FX over DX?....layman's terms, please....

 

[dpastern]

FX has bigger sensor. Think of it this way - 12million pixels into a 23 x 28mm sensor = small pixel sizes. A Full frame sensor is 36 x 24mm, so larger area. This means the sensor pixels are larger. The benefits of a larger pixel are better high ISO performance (between 1-2 stops @ ISO 3200 and above from my experience), and better dynamic range.

Dave

 

[mulester7]

FX has bigger sensor. Think of it this way - 12million pixels into a 23 x 28mm sensor = small pixel sizes. A Full frame sensor is 36 x 24mm, so larger area. This means the sensor pixels are larger. The benefits of a larger pixel are better high ISO performance (between 1-2 stops @ ISO 3200 and above from my experience), and better dynamic range.

Dave

.....ok, I stayed right with you....thanks....am relating to film days with 36x24 negatives....so, with FX, you've got a larger "positive" sensor area to work with, which can only bring better picture quality.....

 

[dpastern]

Pretty much, yes. DX sensors aren't bad, but when you cram lots of pixels onto a smaller area, then the pixels can only be smaller. This also causes diffraction issues, and also problems with coc (circle of confusion). Here's some good tutorials:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

this is quite relevant to our discussion imho:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Hope this helps!

The D700 is a very nice camera btw. It has the AF of the D3, the same sensor too. Build quality and weather sealing isn't as good, and it doesn't have all the D3/D3s features, but you probably won't need them.

Dave

 

[mulester7]

.....here's a shot using Nikon FX.....

 

[julian_photo]

Hey mulester7
So yea the FX is full frame, really the same size chip that film used to be. Advantages are far less noise at high iso your wide angle lenses are still wide. Disadvantage can be if you want telephoto shot your 300mm lens is still only 300 not the equivalent of 450mm. Dynamic range can kind of be better/worse depends on a ton of stuff but its not much either way most of the time.

 

[Echosphere]

Disadvantage can be if you want telephoto shot your 300mm lens is still only 300 not the equivalent of 450mm.

Pixel for pixel equivalent from an APS/DX smaller frame size to a large 35mm/FX frame size all you would need to do is crop it to get the same telephoto shot "magnification".

Meaning, it is isn't worth, doesn't help image quality and loses sharpness.

 

[mulester7]

Hey mulester7
So yea the FX is full frame, really the same size chip that film used to be. Advantages are far less noise at high iso your wide angle lenses are still wide. Disadvantage can be if you want telephoto shot your 300mm lens is still only 300 not the equivalent of 450mm. Dynamic range can kind of be better/worse depends on a ton of stuff but its not much either way most of the time.

.....thanks, Julian....I've about got a headache studying this elusive animal named Nikon....not sure what I'm going to do....the new motorcycle is pretty much out because I fear I would regret that one quickly....I do want a camera to retire with, though.....

 

[mikeybc]

I'd hurry up and buy that 24-70 before nikon does another price increase, they did that about 17 months ago with their lenses . I bought mine 2 weeks before they went up by around 250 bucks.

 

[ehegwer]

This is actually my 3rd post here on AK. I'm a pro wedding shooter, and have both the 17-55 and the 24-70 Both are f2.8.

I like the 24-70 for portraits. Shooting at f2.8 at 70mm in the right light yields a very pleasant portrait.

But the 17-55 has it's place too a much wider lens.

If I had to take just one, it would be the 24-70.

 

[mulester7]

This is actually my 3rd post here on AK. I'm a pro wedding shooter, and have both the 17-55 and the 24-70 Both are f2.8.

I like the 24-70 for portraits. Shooting at f2.8 at 70mm in the right light yields a very pleasant portrait.

But the 17-55 has it's place too a much wider lens.

If I had to take just one, it would be the 24-70.

.....Ehegwer, which Nikon body do you use professionally?.....

 

[mulester7]

I'd hurry up and buy that 24-70 before nikon does another price increase, they did that about 17 months ago with their lenses . I bought mine 2 weeks before they went up by around 250 bucks.

.....am about to pull some triggers, Mikey.....