p.2 #1 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
OffTrail wrote:
Smaller, slower normal lenses like 28 f/3.5's and 35 f/2.8's.
I'm also absolutely over this era of 35's that are the size of coke cans.
I would describe them as being the size of jumbo peanut butter jars or perhaps 1 pound coffee cans.
Controlling Spherical Aberration:
Features a new control ring mechanism to increase or decrease spherical aberration correction. Images with excessive correction retain sharp focus points, while the background blur becomes rigid and bubble-like. Conversely, images with insufficient correction exhibit soft focus on the subject, accompanied by flare in highlight areas. The background blur takes on a smooth rendering, yielding bokeh characteristics with unprecedented variation.
p.2 #5 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
fotog255 wrote:
I miss the 105mm.
I’ll add to that. While there is a 105mm f/2.8 Z MC lens, I miss my Nikon DSLR 105mm f/1.4G ED. That was the best portrait lens I ever used. I really wish Nikon would make a great quality 105mm f/1.4 S lens equivalent. The current f/1.4 lenses being produced are a bit of a compromise between quality and cost.
p.2 #6 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
Every brand used to have their own 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (and Pentax's even went to 90 on the long end). They're all long gone (even though Nikon did a semi-modern take on it, even with IS), and now we're getting 24-105/4-7.1 lenses instead, but I love the idea of semi-bright 24-85 of yore.
I actually have the Canon lens, even though I can admit to not using it very much for the past year or so.
p.2 #7 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Every brand used to have their own 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (and Pentax's even went to 90 on the long end). They're all long gone (even though Nikon did a semi-modern take on it, even with IS), and now we're getting 24-105/4-7.1 lenses instead, but I love the idea of semi-bright 24-85 of yore.
I actually have the Canon lens, even though I can admit to not using it very much for the past year or so.
So you get the 24-120/4. It's notably better than most all those old lenses. The really slow ones are just kit lenses for the cheaper price point.
p.2 #8 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
I know the 24-120 exists, sure (and indeed, I was very close to pulling a trigger on buying one a week or so ago...) But that's a different, higher class of lens.
Of course the 24-70/4 could be construed as the spiritual successor to the 24-85/3.5-4.5 of yore, but it's still not the same kind of thing, esp. because it's quite noticeably shorter after all.
p.2 #10 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I know the 24-120 exists, sure (and indeed, I was very close to pulling a trigger on buying one a week or so ago...) But that's a different, higher class of lens.
Of course the 24-70/4 could be construed as the spiritual successor to the 24-85/3.5-4.5 of yore, but it's still not the same kind of thing, esp. because it's quite noticeably shorter after all.
I'm with you on this. I love my 24-120/4S...it's exceptionally versatile, and the added reach is really nice.
But that classic 24-85/3.5-4.5 with good optics as that midrange between super cheap kit zoom and the higher end zooms is such a nice sweet spot. I agree that Nikon made the 24-70/4S to fill this niche on mirrorless, but 70 has always felt too short for me on a standard zoom. I've never liked that range (which is why if someone offered me the 24-70/2.8 II in place of my 24-120S, I'd accept only to sell it and re-buy the 24-120.) But 85mm is a more useful end point than 70mm, IMO, and would be a more useful lens than the 24-105/4-7.1 due to the faster aperture.
When I had a D750 for a while, I had the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR and it was a very nice optic (and dirt cheap now used).
p.2 #12 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
Jman13 wrote:
I'm with you on this. I love my 24-120/4S...it's exceptionally versatile, and the added reach is really nice.
But that classic 24-85/3.5-4.5 with good optics as that midrange between super cheap kit zoom and the higher end zooms is such a nice sweet spot. I agree that Nikon made the 24-70/4S to fill this niche on mirrorless, but 70 has always felt too short for me on a standard zoom. I've never liked that range (which is why if someone offered me the 24-70/2.8 II in place of my 24-120S, I'd accept only to sell it and re-buy the 24-120.) But 85mm is a more useful end point than 70mm, IMO, and would be a more useful lens than the 24-105/4-7.1 due to the faster aperture.
When I had a D750 for a while, I had the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR and it was a very nice optic (and dirt cheap now used). ...Show more →
Nothing stops one from mounting the F mount 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR's on a Z body but at that point you've already matched the size/weight of a 24-120 S. Unless you're shooting massive numbers of photos in a day/trip and burning through batteries like crazy, the Z5/6/7 series bodies allow weight/size savings just from cutting the mirror box that buy back some of the length/mass gain on the lenses.
I'd agree that 85mm is a more useful long end than 70 in many cases and I personally would prefer a 28-85 over a 24-70. I think the reality is that the marketing machine pushed on and 105 and then 120 mm is longer/more than 85. Thus we ended up with 24-105 or 24-120 as being a very common lens spec.
I've personally owned/shot the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D AF, the 24-85 AF-S G (non VR version), 24-70/4 S, and 24-120/4 S. For sure the 24-85 was a nice set of focal lengths, but I'd also say that with my Z6 and 24-120, there wasn't anywhere I wasn't willing to carry that and it certainly was close enough in size/weight to my D700 and the 24-85. The newer gear is just much more capable.
I am a bit bummed to see some of the slower lenses ending up at f/7.1 on the long end (can we please stop at 5.6 or 6.3?) but it's ultimately marketing.
p.2 #14 · What yesteryear focal lengths do you miss seeing today?
Nothing stops anyone from adapting any of these older lenses that are generally not made any more. The point of the thread is to talk about lens types and designs that were common in the past but very rare today. My 24-120 is more versatile, and better optically than the F mount 24-85 VR. But it would still be a good option to have in the lineup as a solid higher end budget lens. I would find it a preferable option to the 24-70/4 or the 24-105/4-7.1. It isn’t a replacement for the 24-120/4S.
huddy wrote:
Nothing stops one from mounting the F mount 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR's on a Z body but at that point you've already matched the size/weight of a 24-120 S. Unless you're shooting massive numbers of photos in a day/trip and burning through batteries like crazy, the Z5/6/7 series bodies allow weight/size savings just from cutting the mirror box that buy back some of the length/mass gain on the lenses.
I'd agree that 85mm is a more useful long end than 70 in many cases and I personally would prefer a 28-85 over a 24-70. I think the reality is that the marketing machine pushed on and 105 and then 120 mm is longer/more than 85. Thus we ended up with 24-105 or 24-120 as being a very common lens spec.
I've personally owned/shot the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D AF, the 24-85 AF-S G (non VR version), 24-70/4 S, and 24-120/4 S. For sure the 24-85 was a nice set of focal lengths, but I'd also say that with my Z6 and 24-120, there wasn't anywhere I wasn't willing to carry that and it certainly was close enough in size/weight to my D700 and the 24-85. The newer gear is just much more capable.
I am a bit bummed to see some of the slower lenses ending up at f/7.1 on the long end (can we please stop at 5.6 or 6.3?) but it's ultimately marketing.
