Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #19 · Is the 24-70 that much better? | |
PeterTan wrote:
is there any difference in picture quality if the lense is used with D80 and D300? Is the quality better if the body is D300?
Unless I'm mistaken, any lens designed for FX should perform at its absolute best on a DX camera, since the DX sensor is smaller and only gets the light output from the center of the image circle that the lens produces.
But between two DX cameras, the difference will not come from the lens in any way, only from the sensor, the software, and the processing. I don't think you'd see any real difference between the images from the D80 and the D300. The D300 might allow you to capture shots that the D80 could not get, due to other factors like the better AF engine, the weather sealing, the faster burst rate, or something else... but if you managed to get the same image from both cameras, I don't think that there would be a significant difference in the end result once it has been captured.
Kaj E wrote:
It is the best zoom in its range also for DX.
I disagree with Kaj. The best midrange zoom for a DX camera is the 17-55. The build quality, handling, image quality, AF speed, and other factors are just as good -- meaning both of them are incredibly good -- but the range of the 17-55 is much better suited to the DX sensor. The extra 15 mm of reach on the long end are not really that big a deal, but the 7 mm difference on the wide end are a much bigger deal and have a greater impact on the images you can capture.
The 17-55 can capture a field of view from 28.9° to 79°, while the 24-70 can capture a field of view from 34.3° to 84°. A first superficial glance at the numbers would seem to show a very similar five-degree difference at both ends of the range, but if you actually look at those angles and what they can do to your shooting possibilities, then you understand why Nikon created both lenses instead of simply offering one.
|
) a nice set of primes along with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VRI. On higher end weddings I use more primes and off camera flash. It really depends on how much a Bride or client sees your work? Most of the Brides out there are not looking at the same things we photogs are looking at or are they? One never really knows from bride to bride? For me primes are nice for subject isolation and getting a bit more light when you need it. The lower weight is nice to. Ive come close to dumping my zooms but they are too valuable. I learned this when my 70-200 had to go in for a service repair. In the end most brides care more about you getting the shot than the art behind it. It’s a balance that I find my self fighting every time I shoot. Our art driven eyes can sometimes get in the way of why we are hired in the 1st place. I would get the 24-70! It is a chunk of glass but worth the weight and price. If you don’t feel that way sell it, there are plenty of buyers out there and your loss is nothing if you solve a critical question. I do feel your pain though as our bodies grow old. My issue has more to do with tendonitis. BTW I hand held a 200-400 for a job while my 70-200 was gone and was surprised at how well my shoulders did. This lens is not that bad for its size.