I'm currently using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 as my standard zoom on the D700. It works well, though it's not ultimately as sharp as the 24-70. It also weighs about 1/10 as much, which is a huge plus for me. I'm trying to hold out for Nikon to announce a f4 standard zoom that weighs less then two pounds.
Thanks for replies. I am not sure what to do now. What about the golden oldie 35-70mm f2.8. for landscape. I could use that until i can finance the 28-70, 14-24 or new f4 lens for fx cameras.
my Tamron 28-300 VC outperformed my Nikkor 24-120 VR at every focal length and aperture where they overlapped in terms of sharpness and CA. the 24-120 VR is as close to awful as i have tried from Nikon. the only worse lens i have used on any of my Nikon bodies is an AF Tokina 17.
HerbChong wrote:
my Tamron 28-300 VC outperformed my Nikkor 24-120 VR at every focal length and aperture where they overlapped in terms of sharpness and CA. the 24-120 VR is as close to awful as i have tried from Nikon. the only worse lens i have used on any of my Nikon bodies is an AF Tokina 17.
Herb...
You don't like the Tokina 17mm ? I've got the 17mm F3.5 AT-X Pro and liked it enough to sell my 14-24. Not as good by any means, but a very good 17mm lens overall, especially for the money
I found it better than the 18-35 and the 18mm prime, and easily on par with the 17-35
The fact its under $300, under 1lb, and takes 77mm filters made me really not use the 14-24
the one i had wasn't sharp in the center at f11 and had CA that never went away on DX. we won't even mention the corners.
Herb...
millsart wrote:
You don't like the Tokina 17mm ? I've got the 17mm F3.5 AT-X Pro and liked it enough to sell my 14-24. Not as good by any means, but a very good 17mm lens overall, especially for the money
HerbChong wrote:
the one i had wasn't sharp in the center at f11 and had CA that never went away on DX. we won't even mention the corners.
Herb...
Thats weird, its usually a pretty well regarded lens overall. Well controlled CA and very low flare, and pretty good over the entire frame. Very little vignetting as well.
You should give one another try sometime, you can pick them up for around $250 if your lucky.
As I said, mine is pretty darn good. Good enough to sell a 14-24 and thats a hard lens to even come remotely close to measuring up to
Crap on = crap out. I actually had a fairly sharp copy on the D300. It's slow consumer glass with QC issues.
I'd rather use a coke bottle on FX than that lens. YMMV
...I just picked up a Tokina 17, and shot it at a wedding last weekend...ran it up to f/8, and it was very sharp...and was mounted on my D3 at that. It's not the "ATX Pro" model, and I am surprised at how good the shots were from it...not a bad find for $170.00.
Nikon has focused on DX lenses and really left us FX users with few contemporary options in the way of wide and wide-to-tele zooms, other than super-expensive f/2.8 lenses.
A 16-35 f/4 is sorely needed, as is a 24-105 f/4. I have the 24-70 f/2.8, but I recently realized that I have no backup if that lens goes down. I looked for something that could cover 24-35, and there is nothing modern. I have the 35 f/2 but its performance underwhelms me. I had the 20 and 24 primes, and they were really disappointing. I have an old 28 f/2 AI that performs much better, but it is not going to do me much good at a wedding.
So what do we get? An 85 DX micro and another FX body for which there are only two viable W/A choices.
I am in some disagreement.
All Nikon lenses are excellent (as in 80% at 30 lpm into the frame corners) at f8-11 at or near infinity.
That is good enough for a sharp detailed 16 inch wide print from 12 MP - a point Thom Hogan forcefully makes.
I am not arguing 24mm corner quality falls apart at close focus distances - because it does. I am not saying at it's widest aperture (for the focal length) it is as good a a faster prime or zoom at the same aperture - because it is not.
Let us not forget it shook the photographic world when introduced as prior to this nobody thought a 5x zoom as wide as 24mm with this optical quality was possible.
At landscape distances and apertures (f11 or thereabouts) as Thom Hogan puts it (of lenses in general) if you cannot get sharp detailed A3+ prints perhaps you should be looking at something other than your equipment.
If you want sharper 24mm corner detail from a zoom at minimum focus - then you have to spend more money.
I wanted to like the 24-120 but it just did not hold up on the D700. Then I paid less for the 24-85 2.8-4.0 and it was the best glass for the price on it. I only sold it because I sold the D700. Very sharp, smaller, and a ridiculously close focus range.
