anybody any experience with that lens on FX.
I am looking for a light lens for my D3, when I don't want to carry the weight of the 24-70 or to be a bit more discrete...
I really love the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is my current favorite solution, but I really miss the extra 4mm on the wide side...
A member of another forum is using the 2.8-4.0 version (old AF-D design) and is pretty happy with it. I was thinking of the AF-S version (better AF and there is one available for almost nothing in my neighborhood)... would that be a good choice ? any examples ?
Guy, I do not own a digital "full frame" but I have used the lens on my F100 with excellent results. My sample is the AF-S f3.5-4.5.
I do not really know what you need the lens for but I have not done huge enlargements with it. Expect the usual wide angle distortions at the short end and some barrel at the long end. Center sharpness appears very good to me and cannot say much about the corners because my enlargements will not prove anything.
The lens is light and easy to carry and has nice close focus abilities. I took the lens to Maine recently and I took lots of pictures with it. I think f8-11 are most probably the sharpest apertures at all focal lengths but those are usual apertures for landscape photography. Other apertures like f5.6 perform very well too.
You know that pictures shown on the web do not make a lens justice. If the lens is reasonably priced buy it and try it. You could be pleasantly surprised.
Dito on camerapapi - I have this lens myself (bought with my D100). It's a decent lens, you might compare it with the Nikkor 18-70 sold in a kit with the D70.
It's light, optically quite ok - nothing wrong with it, just give it a try!
I have the 2.8-4 and it is a great backup to the 24-70. Good macro too. However, it has some odd distortion that is not easily correctable in post, at the 24 end. It also has pincushion at the long end.
The 24-85 AFS had more flare than the 24-85 F2.8-4 in my tests. I had the 2.8-4 and it was decent but not compact. I got the AFS version for a friend and I tried it out but I did not like it. You can test it out for yourself but compact says a lot sometimes and so does "for almost nothing".
I had both and found the D better than the AF-s, with a very, very close focusing distance. Very underrated IMHO. I used it on a D300 and D700 -liked the FL much better on the D700.
I have this lens and it use it on D700 as a light option. I like this lens the only issue I have with it is distortion on 24 mm. which I normally correct in NX2.
90 5.0 wrote:
If you don't need the speed the 28-80 af-d is small, cheap and sharp on ff.
Ditto, it's usually in the $50 range. Also, the 24-85 is sharp, indeed, but it does have barrel distortion on the wide end and pincussion on the long end.
90 5.0 wrote:
If you don't need the speed the 28-80 af-d is small, cheap and sharp on ff.
I know that, I still own one (I used it on cameras like the F/N65), the quality is ok, but it is a fragile piece of plastic (I had one which literally exploded in my hands... replaced by Nikon under warranty). And this is not an option because the Tamron is much better and I can't get the 24mm I would like to have...
I've used the 2,8-4 on (then) D70 and (now) on D700. I like it a lot, it's a great walkaround lens. Yes, there is some odd distortion at the wide end, but I can live with that. Together with my 17-35/2,8, it makes a great combo for everyday shooting.
gugs wrote:
anybody any experience with that lens on FX.
I am looking for a light lens for my D3, when I don't want to carry the weight of the 24-70 or to be a bit more discrete...
I really love the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is my current favorite solution, but I really miss the extra 4mm on the wide side...
A member of another forum is using the 2.8-4.0 version (old AF-D design) and is pretty happy with it. I was thinking of the AF-S version (better AF and there is one available for almost nothing in my neighborhood)... would that be a good choice ? any examples ?
