igmolinav Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Hi : ) !!! - 24-70 mm. f/2.8 - Is a prime superfluous?? | |
Hi,
I remember I had a chance to work with a photographer
back in the days that many people used medium format
cameras with film. He used a Hasselblad with a 120 mm.
Zeiss Macro lens with maximum aperture of f/4 This lens,
the 120 mm., has several characteristics that are similar to
the Nikon 24-70 mm. f/2.8 Both lenses are very sharp, (per-
haps the macro a bit sharper than the other). The 120 mm.
macro lens has almost the "same focal length" on 6x6
format as the Nikon zoom has at 70 mm. on 35 mm. format.
Both have almost the same closest-focusing distance at
around 0.4 meters, and the magnification ratio is around 1:4
for both lenses.
Most people nowadays may not use a Hasselblad. They may
use instead a dslr with a 50 mm. or 60 mm. macro lens in order
to cover what the Hasselblad with the 120 mm. did back then.
With regard to optical quality, a review speaks very well of
the quality of the optics from the Nikon 24-70 mm. compared
to the optics of the Zeiss 24-70 mm.
Here is the review:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31457878
The same review with one of the main arguments
in regard to the optical quality of the zooms, parti-
cularly that of the Nikon zoom:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31536391
So, if the Nikon zoom at any focal length between 50 mm. and
70 mm. gives me (more or less) the same characteristics and
performance perhaps that a 120 mm. macro on a Hasselblad,
then why bother to buy a 50 mm. or 60 mm. macro lens, when
the zoom does the job? Won't the macro prime be superfluous?
This scenario is thought when using a full frame camera like the
d600/610 or d800?
Thank you in advance, kind regards,
igmolinav : ) !!!
|