Nikon 24-70mm VS. 50mm f1.4D

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Which of the above is better in terms of optical performance?
I know both of them are quite equal in terms of sharpness and colour but how do distortion control,vignetting and bokeh compare?

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Which of the above is better in terms of optical performance? I know both of them are quite equal in terms of sharpness and colour but how do distortion control,vignetting and bokeh compare?

I would think the 50mm's bokeh is better. Actually I'd think its hard to compare a prime lens with a zoom.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Which of the above is better in terms of optical performance? I know both of them are quite equal in terms of sharpness and colour but how do distortion control,vignetting and bokeh compare?

Indeed it is not apple to apple comparison. It's rated in Kenrockwell's article that Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is one of the best zoom lens that is designed by Nikon that can be comparable to sharpness of a prime lens.

In terms for versatility, I would say 24-70 will make a freaking good indoor event shooting for it's large aperture and given it's a FX lens, it makes it good for DX and FX bodies. But of course on a DX body, it seems like an overkill. S$2K for this baby ain't cheap, and it only make sense if this baby is mounted on a D3.

In fact, that's the next lens I'm going to get together with a D3.

For outdoor purpose, it's medium telephoto range is not as versatile as the 18-200. So it seems like a choice between versatility and IQ.

Of course couple with another heavy duty 70-200, it does make the whole set up D3, 24-70, 70-200 almost complete, with in additional of the 12-24, it's pretty much complete. 2 more lens to go with the set will be 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a good macro lens.

[tomcat]

Originally Posted by David Kwok Of course couple with another heavy duty 70-200, it does make the whole set up D3, 24-70, 70-200 almost complete, with in additional of the 12-24, it's pretty much complete. 2 more lens to go with the set will be 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a good macro lens.

14-24mm f/2.8 you mean.

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Quote: Indeed it is not apple to apple comparison. It's rated in Kenrockwell's article that Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is one of the best zoom lens that is designed by Nikon that can be comparable to sharpness of a prime lens.

Yes I understand.But is the vignetting and distortion control good considering I would probably use it with a FF d700?

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Yes I understand.But is the vignetting and distortion control good considering I would probably use it with a FF d700?

I think theres distortion at 24mm if i can remember.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by tomcat 14-24mm f/2.8 you mean.

My apologies, it's 14-24

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Yes I understand.But is the vignetting and distortion control good considering I would probably use it with a FF d700?

Most of the lens have distortion. Hence I would rather say, which if the lens have the least or the most easy to correct. Some of the Nikkor lens are not easily corrected using the lens correction filter found in CS2/3.

Next is how often do u bother about that small amount of pincushion or barrel distortion ? Are you taking architectures all the time ? If you are, perhaps next question is how are you going to deal with perspective correction ? Unless u r using a PC lens which can help to a certain extent at the expense of much costly lens and also ML only, then your only option to correct the perspective is using the lens correction filter or similar tools. When u need to correct that much of perspective, does it makes sense to do your barrel distortion at the same time ?

Most photography don't even land under architecture, mostly scenery, portraits, macro of subjects that are non linear in the first place, do your portrait subject looks out of shape with he or she looks 2% more of barrel distortion? I don't think u need to be even convince that u cannot even make out if a picture is distortion unless u have a series of parallel and straight columns in it.

Vignetting... I seems to be introducing vignetting onto my photos on purpose even when I'm using my 70-200 f/2.8 on my DX D300 body which has totally no such problem when using a FX lens on the DX sensor. Seems to me most FX lens o D3 have slight amount of vignetting, but there again, how often do u photograph against a flat background to notice that ? I think audience focus more on your subject rather than the vignetting, in fact, they might think vignetting is introduced on purpose!. (^.^)

If 70-200, 24-40, and 14-24 is not your option for D3 and D700, I doubt there are really any better lens out there at the moment to compete with them.

These 3 and top notch pro lens from Nikon.

The biggest question is actually: "Are you willing to part with your $"

[Henessy]

Originally Posted by David Kwok Most of the lens have distortion. Hence I would rather say, which if the lens have the least or the most easy to correct. Some of the Nikkor lens are not easily corrected using the lens correction filter found in CS2/3. Next is how often do u bother about that small amount of pincushion or barrel distortion ? Are you taking architectures all the time ? If you are, perhaps next question is how are you going to deal with perspective correction ? Unless u r using a PC lens which can help to a certain extent at the expense of much costly lens and also ML only, then your only option to correct the perspective is using the lens correction filter or similar tools. When u need to correct that much of perspective, does it makes sense to do your barrel distortion at the same time ? Most photography don't even land under architecture, mostly scenery, portraits, macro of subjects that are non linear in the first place, do your portrait subject looks out of shape with he or she looks 2% more of barrel distortion? I don't think u need to be even convince that u cannot even make out if a picture is distortion unless u have a series of parallel and straight columns in it. Vignetting... I seems to be introducing vignetting onto my photos on purpose even when I'm using my 70-200 f/2.8 on my DX D300 body which has totally no such problem when using a FX lens on the DX sensor. Seems to me most FX lens o D3 have slight amount of vignetting, but there again, how often do u photograph against a flat background to notice that ? I think audience focus more on your subject rather than the vignetting, in fact, they might think vignetting is introduced on purpose!. (^.^) If 70-200, 24-40, and 14-24 is not your option for D3 and D700, I doubt there are really any better lens out there at the moment to compete with them. These 3 and top notch pro lens from Nikon. The biggest question is actually: "Are you willing to part with your $"

Well Said. In fact the 24-70 + D700 is a deadly combo for travelling

[Die Hard]

Originally Posted by David Kwok Most of the lens have distortion. Hence I would rather say, which if the lens have the least or the most easy to correct. Some of the Nikkor lens are not easily corrected using the lens correction filter found in CS2/3. Next is how often do u bother about that small amount of pincushion or barrel distortion ? Are you taking architectures all the time ? If you are, perhaps next question is how are you going to deal with perspective correction ? Unless u r using a PC lens which can help to a certain extent at the expense of much costly lens and also ML only, then your only option to correct the perspective is using the lens correction filter or similar tools. When u need to correct that much of perspective, does it makes sense to do your barrel distortion at the same time ? Most photography don't even land under architecture, mostly scenery, portraits, macro of subjects that are non linear in the first place, do your portrait subject looks out of shape with he or she looks 2% more of barrel distortion? I don't think u need to be even convince that u cannot even make out if a picture is distortion unless u have a series of parallel and straight columns in it. Vignetting... I seems to be introducing vignetting onto my photos on purpose even when I'm using my 70-200 f/2.8 on my DX D300 body which has totally no such problem when using a FX lens on the DX sensor. Seems to me most FX lens o D3 have slight amount of vignetting, but there again, how often do u photograph against a flat background to notice that ? I think audience focus more on your subject rather than the vignetting, in fact, they might think vignetting is introduced on purpose!. (^.^) If 70-200, 24-40, and 14-24 is not your option for D3 and D700, I doubt there are really any better lens out there at the moment to compete with them. These 3 and top notch pro lens from Nikon. The biggest question is actually: "Are you willing to part with your $"

Very Well Said and totally agree with you

[asdfg]

Originally Posted by David Kwok Most of the lens have distortion. Hence I would rather say, which if the lens have the least or the most easy to correct. Some of the Nikkor lens are not easily corrected using the lens correction filter found in CS2/3. Next is how often do u bother about that small amount of pincushion or barrel distortion ? Are you taking architectures all the time ? If you are, perhaps next question is how are you going to deal with perspective correction ? Unless u r using a PC lens which can help to a certain extent at the expense of much costly lens and also ML only, then your only option to correct the perspective is using the lens correction filter or similar tools. When u need to correct that much of perspective, does it makes sense to do your barrel distortion at the same time ? Most photography don't even land under architecture, mostly scenery, portraits, macro of subjects that are non linear in the first place, do your portrait subject looks out of shape with he or she looks 2% more of barrel distortion? I don't think u need to be even convince that u cannot even make out if a picture is distortion unless u have a series of parallel and straight columns in it. Vignetting... I seems to be introducing vignetting onto my photos on purpose even when I'm using my 70-200 f/2.8 on my DX D300 body which has totally no such problem when using a FX lens on the DX sensor. Seems to me most FX lens o D3 have slight amount of vignetting, but there again, how often do u photograph against a flat background to notice that ? I think audience focus more on your subject rather than the vignetting, in fact, they might think vignetting is introduced on purpose!. (^.^) If 70-200, 24-40, and 14-24 is not your option for D3 and D700, I doubt there are really any better lens out there at the moment to compete with them. These 3 and top notch pro lens from Nikon. The biggest question is actually: "Are you willing to part with your $"

Well yes you have to go through lots of technical details if you want to get a lens that expensive and make sure its worth every cent, but if you like the feel of the lens, the autofocus, weight and so on, and take a couple of test shots at different focal lengths and don't mind the distortion, pincushion etc (well take a few and look on a computer screen) then just buy the lens I mean if you're going to be picky then there's no lens for you.

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Quote: Most of the lens have distortion. Hence I would rather say, which if the lens have the least or the most easy to correct. Some of the Nikkor lens are not easily corrected using the lens correction filter found in CS2/3. Next is how often do u bother about that small amount of pincushion or barrel distortion ? Are you taking architectures all the time ? If you are, perhaps next question is how are you going to deal with perspective correction ? Unless u r using a PC lens which can help to a certain extent at the expense of much costly lens and also ML only, then your only option to correct the perspective is using the lens correction filter or similar tools. When u need to correct that much of perspective, does it makes sense to do your barrel distortion at the same time ? Most photography don't even land under architecture, mostly scenery, portraits, macro of subjects that are non linear in the first place, do your portrait subject looks out of shape with he or she looks 2% more of barrel distortion? I don't think u need to be even convince that u cannot even make out if a picture is distortion unless u have a series of parallel and straight columns in it. Vignetting... I seems to be introducing vignetting onto my photos on purpose even when I'm using my 70-200 f/2.8 on my DX D300 body which has totally no such problem when using a FX lens on the DX sensor. Seems to me most FX lens o D3 have slight amount of vignetting, but there again, how often do u photograph against a flat background to notice that ? I think audience focus more on your subject rather than the vignetting, in fact, they might think vignetting is introduced on purpose!. (^.^) If 70-200, 24-40, and 14-24 is not your option for D3 and D700, I doubt there are really any better lens out there at the moment to compete with them. These 3 and top notch pro lens from Nikon. The biggest question is actually: "Are you willing to part with your $"

Good insight.But the main question is whether the distortion on the wide end is as bad as the 70-200 f2.8 VR

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Good insight.But the main question is whether the distortion on the wide end is as bad as the 70-200 f2.8 VR

Okay... I'm going to show off my works to you... okay I'm just kidding, trying to bring my point in more examples. Refer to one of my works below, does it looks distorted to you ?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2836367616

I cannot even remember how slanted the waves are now I only remember the sunset is just that orange and nice when I'm there aiming at it. Now I still can enjoy the moment from this picture above. It's done at the widest end of 70-200mm f/2.8.

I think there is no worries, Nikkor lens are normally placed one of the best quality lens among the others in the market, if the IQ is that bad, it wouldn't be so well reviewed till today. Nikon don't makes printers or hifi set or blah blah blah.... If they cannot make their body and lens good, they head off to make fridge soon. (^.^)

If you can afford Nikkor lens, I'm sure they can deliver quality to you.

Just to be abit sarcastic and funny, mainly trying to be funny, no offence please. In this photograph

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw/2833207731

The kind of "distortion" on the far right man is something that Nikon can NEVER resolve in the next 200 yrs. hahahahha.... kidding.....

Thanks for reading.