Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

  1. #21

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76 View Post
    . . . shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.
    Agree that these are good consideration if a FX body is akan datang.

  2. #22
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    I thought I mention it has the least at 16mm ? I tried it against a flat wall in my home at roughly 1~2 meters away. It does shows slightly. I understand that vignetting occurs different amount depending on the source light strength and angle at it is coming from. Generally it doesn't show up much in nature sceneries. Using your example, I can't say it's the best approach to decide on vignetting amount. You need a flat wall to determine.

    Unless its really a choice of cost and you already have one and not willing to sell it away at a heavy lost, I see it pretty pointless to get one for a FX body. I have also have my fair share in getting 3rd party lenses, and seriously I stop getting them for a reason that the price depreciate much faster than Nikon lens. But then after all these while, I don't change my gear much and pretty satisfied with what I have, I see it as lower priority in this aspect. Next is I own a copy of DxO and they largely just perform correction for Nikon Lens + Body combination as their priority. That's also why I got a S95 instead of other similar brands, should I neglect the fact that S95 build is small and rugged.

    Jokingly, I'm also interested to poison TS to get the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 because it will blow his expectation away and also at the same time his wallet.
    14-24 is indeed a great lens. Heavy, expensive, but good.

    I find 16-28 from tokina also very good, almost touching the 14-24 in IQ, but lose out in that 2mm wideness it lacks.

  3. #23
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76 View Post
    thanks all for the constructive replies. hope it is a objective and 'healthy' discussion

    are you refering to this sigma?
    http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english...2_24_45_56.htm

    and how about nikkor afd wide prime? afd 20mm f/2.8? afd 24mm f/2.8? etc? af 14mm f/2.8 ed?
    20 and 24 primes are small and portable. Just that they are F2.8 lenses. 24/2.8 is a little redundant if you have a 24-70/2.8.

    14/2.8 is almost as expensive as a 14-24/2.8. If you really want a 14mm prime, I suggest you go for the samyang.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123

    20 and 24 primes are small and portable. Just that they are F2.8 lenses. 24/2.8 is a little redundant if you have a 24-70/2.8.

    14/2.8 is almost as expensive as a 14-24/2.8. If you really want a 14mm prime, I suggest you go for the samyang.
    But 24mm 2.8 has a lot less distortion ...

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    BEHIND YOU!!!!!!
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    ya ...less or acceptable distortion for wide angle prime len +1

  6. #26
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit-Kat-Lover

    But 24mm 2.8 has a lot less distortion ...
    If you shoot digital, distortion is not that big a deal. Relatively easy to correct nowadays. Most software has profiles available that will correct them with a click of a button.

    But a f2.8 prime is not really attractive especially of it's IQ is not spectacular.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by kkgoxplore View Post
    I wouldn't recommend in view of the crop factor that cause you to lose the 24mm coverage. Unless you are planning to upgrade to FX body, the DX16-85mm would be a better choice.
    IMHO 16-85 is not a good deal. I feel it does not perform well in colour and bokeh quality, plus its not 2.8.
    Last edited by rubberbands; 24th November 2011 at 01:47 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •