Is anybody except me waiting for a standard zoom lens with constant aperture?

manuela

Hi,
I would highly apprechiate a stand zoom (24-70/85/105) with a constant aperture but smaller than 2.8, e.g. 3.5 or 4. The lens should be smaller and lighter than then 24-70/2.8, be as sharp and having less CAs. Practically the same Nikon did recently for 70-200mm. The 24-70/2.8 ist too heavy for me, I seldom use aperture 2.8 so 4 would do it for me. Anyway, the 24-70 is nearly six years old, is no successor planned by Nikon?

heartyfisher

There is the 16-35 F4 and the 24-120 F4 .. i think that covers the range you are asking about..  I cant see nikon creating a 24-85 F4 as they already have a 24-85 F3.5-4.5

kyoshinikon

I'm with Hearty...  I want a Lighter alternative to my 28-70mm but I'm just going to get a fresh 50mm f/1.4 Ill probably  keep my 80-200mm or swap it for a 70-200mm f/2.8 and definitively will keep my 14-24mm. 

Compared to the 28-70mm the 24-70mm is light

sevencrossing

Is there anything wrong with the 24 -120 f 4 VR?

If there is I cant find it

Msmoto

Question answered

manuela

Maybe I'll try the 24-120 despite its heavy distortions and CAs.
According to photozone it is rather sharp but shows heavy distortions except @35mm.
I don't know the 28-70mm, according to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz it is only 35g heavier then the 24-70, it is shorter and has a huge diameter (88.5mm).

Msmoto

The 24-120 is 84mm diameter, 24-70mm 83mm diameter,  The 24-70 is about 3 cm longer and 230 gms heavier.  For me, these are not significant.  

For some of us who used Hasselblad 500c's with the 250mm Sonnar...there are really no heavy DSLR cameras...until the big guns are mounted like a 400mm f/2.8.  This is heavy!

Even the 24mm f/1.4 is fairly heavy at 620 gm, but this is not what DSLR cameras are about.  Light weight comes in the Sony NEX, Fuji X Pro 1, etc.

TaoTeJared

Maybe I'll try the 24-120 despite its heavy distortions and CAs.
According to photozone it is rather sharp but shows heavy distortions except @35mm.
I don't know the 28-70mm, according to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz it is only 35g heavier then the 24-70, it is shorter and has a huge diameter (88.5mm).

They over exaggerate using terms like heavy, abundant, etc.  If they were honest and told people that you could barley tell the difference from the $2,000 24-70 lens and the $1,300 24-120 lens who would read them?

The distortions and CAs are not bad at all.  Lightroom fixes them with ease.  If you shoot JPG on the newer bodies (last 2-3 releases) they are corrected automatically.  

Bad distortions and CAs in my mind is when Lightroom can't handle it, the camera can't fix it, and it needs to be hand edited.  I have not used a modern Nikkor that this happens with.

[Deleted User]

The distortions and CAs are not bad at all.  Lightroom fixes them with ease.  If you shoot JPG on the newer bodies (last 2-3 releases) they are corrected automatically.  

+1

(Remark to self: have I ever considered distortion since using LR? Answer: No)

JJ_SO

They over exaggerate using terms like heavy, abundant, etc.  If they were honest and told people that you could barley tell the difference from the $2,000 24-70 lens and the $1,300 24-120 lens who would read them?
The distortions and CAs are not bad at all.  Lightroom fixes them with ease.  If you shoot JPG on the newer bodies (last 2-3 releases) they are corrected automatically.  Bad distortions and CAs in my mind is when Lightroom can't handle it, the camera can't fix it, and it needs to be hand edited.  I have not used a modern Nikkor that this happens with.

I don't think they exaggerate that much. 3% distortion is clearly visible, CAs and lower resolution at the tele end, too. I don't want to spoil the fun of it's users, but I don't see a reason to suspect photozone being dishonest. I could agree to all their tests, as they were about the lenses I own. If you first need a lot of LR corrections to get the pictures straight you will always loose a bit information. But usually I try to get additional information from Roger Cicala, because he's a bit more grounded and less pixelpeeping than photozone. And he uses to test more than one copy with more than one body which gives me also extra information. 

The new 24-85 is really nothing to compare with 24-70/2.8 but again, you get what you pay for.

haroldp

Capture NX2 fixes the CA and distortion automatically as well. If it can fix the 18-200, the 24-120 f4 is a piece of cake.

I use the the 24-120 f4 regularly on a D800e and raw process in NX2.
Stopped down to f5.6 it is excellent.

Regards ... H

kyoshinikon

Maybe I'll try the 24-120 despite its heavy distortions and CAs.
According to photozone it is rather sharp but shows heavy distortions except @35mm.
I don't know the 28-70mm, according to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz it is only 35g heavier then the 24-70, it is shorter and has a huge diameter (88.5mm).

I could care less if it is only a smidgen heavier on paper... Ergonomics make a huge difference in how weight is distributed and whether or not the 28-70mm weighs practically the same on paper as the 24-70mm i really don't care, in my hands it feels a world lighter.

 It may help if you went to your local camera store and tried the 24-120mm (I love it as an fx all rounder personally) Holding one will give you a very different experience than a review ever could...

manuela

Thanx everyone for the interesting discussion.

Unfortunately I don't have a local camera store because I live in a small village, and the stores in the next town have only 1-2 kits of different brands on their shelves.

The thing I don't understand is why it is impossible to construct a lens with low CAs, other brands can do that (with the same zoom range). Of course cameras and software can correct almost any lens error (except lacking sharpness), but that comes with a price. I prefer lenses with few CAs and as few distortions as possible, I am not that concerned about vignetting.

sevencrossing

Canon do not have a 24- 120

sigma do not have a 24 -120

TaoTeJared

I don't think they exaggerate that much. 3% distortion is clearly visible, CAs and lower resolution at the tele end, too. 

Dishonest?  I wouldn't go that far - but they way they state some findings they make some believe it is somehow possible to have a perfect lens.  

If they stated something like this, I would say they were honest:  

Due to physics, wider lenses are much more prone to distortion and CAs.  In comparison to lenses who reside in the same zoom range, this lens performs much better than most, is greatly improved from precious versions and is only greatly outperformed by a dedicated prime lens at the same focal lengths.  In this price range none are any better in this mount.

Now if they would state something similar to that, I would call that honest.  What they leave out is where their base line is, which is probably much different than new users or non-lens junkies.  This leads readers who are still learning, to believe it is somehow bad, not good, or easy to have a better one that will work with their camera.  

3% is nothing when it is down to 1% within a few MM of zooming out.  Most of Nikon's lenses seem to have bad distortion on the wide end, but if you zoom even 1mm it drops drastically.  Honest reviewers would tell you that.  Lazy one's just test 3 positions (widest, middle, longest) where 2 of the tests are on both sides of the extremes for the lens.   

The thing I don't understand is why it is impossible to construct a lens with low CAs, other brands can do that (with the same zoom range). 

Other brands generally have much worse CAs than Nikon and extremely worse distortion.  Exception could be Leica.  

Your perception of what is considered "bad" CAs & distortion is greatly skewed.  5-10 years ago, double of what is bad today, was considered great then.  There is a difference in CAs as well.  Some CAs are terrible to eddit out, others are quite easy.  The Nikkor lenses released in the last 5 years all have CAs that are easily managed and edited out.  

The reason the new 70-200 f4 has less CAs is much more due to the focal range (degree angle of the view) combined with a tighter f-stop, than some new design that can be put into every lens.  Wide lenses are much more prone to CAs. 

Every lens is a dance between cost and performance and the resulting compromise leads one direction or another.  

JJ_SO

@TaoTeJared: maybe this explains a bit more of PZ's ratings: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/product-ratings. I'm not going into discussion whether honest or dishonest the 3 guys may be, who're doing their reviews after their standards, but I think, they put some really helpful theoretical stuff on their site, which, again, comes for free. I consider their site as trustworthy, regardless your concerns about what they should've told also. They TELL, one only needs to make the effort to search on their site. And because these things include all lens manufacturers, they don't tell the same stuff again in each lens test, just to keep them slim.

I don't agree with all the posters who say, LR does the job, if there's distortion: all those pixels need to be recalculated. They are squarish and they stay sqarish. So, the software needs to delete some of all of them in case it corrects barrel and to interpolate in case it corrects pincushion. In each way, we lose information.

Question also is: why doing this correction? Nobody shooting architecture or reproductions will use a zoom lens with such amount of distortions for. A small bunch of primes or PC lenses are preferred by architecture photogs anyway. And for us others? With the 24-85 the ocean can have a curve in the wrong direction. I would not loose that much of information if I correct that, some waves more or less, some mist and maybe a more curved seagull than it actually was. But before I have to rely on software and transfer a lot of the photographic process to post process, I think, I would try to get a better lens. That was one of my reasons to get rid of the 28-300. Okay, that was so weak, that post process will do no miracles.

photozone sees a difference of only one star and lists the "flaws"of the 24-70 as well, which are nearly the same amount of distortions at the wide end, not much less CAs, but plus the larger zoom range of 24-120. At the end, I chose a relatively cheap lens in this range because I already have nice and sharp primes and want to travel light from time to time - but always having in mind, this shot would be clearer with a prime, makes it no fun to use it that much.

TaoTeJared

JJ_SO - again you are using the word dishonest (your word not mine) and trying to paint my words as something that is Black and White.  Please do not do that.  

I read photozone regularly and understand all of their tests along with about a dozen other review sites.   I like their reviews in general but find they do tend to use descriptive words that exaggerate when it is not needed, nor reasonable unless you want to make something sound more interesting.  Many new comers, or less tech oriented photogs pick up on those and make them believe that there is A) something better, or it is wrong to have it.  That is unfortunate, and miss-leading.  Being free, testing other manufactures lenses, etc. has nothing to do with how they write things up nor is an argument for or against them.  

In how you are describing the corrections lightroom and other applications do, is bit of a over simplification and no matter what you do to edit any photo you are changing the information, but I'm sure you understand where the shortcomings are.  Using the newest software I don't find that much if any valuable "information" is lost at all beyond what the original distortion already skewed.  If you are trying to turn a fisheye shot straight, yes, but at 35mm on a zoom with minimal change, I find it indiscernible.  The question isn't if you do or do not loose some detail, but which details are lost and if they are really that important.  

Yes, zooms are compromises, and most of us struggle to find one which has the fewest compromises that we can live with.  That is an individual choice.  That being said, it is not reasonable to believe there is a perfect zoom that is available to the masses nor should reviewer persuade people to believe so.  There are zooms made for the film/movie industry that do perform close to what people wish for in a zoom.  They are also $50,000-$100,000+.  That is the price of "almost" perfection.  

JJ_SO

...If they were honest and told people that you could barley tell the difference from the $2,000 24-70 lens and the $1,300 24-120 lens who would read them?

So, it's my misinterpretation of English language? Absolutely possible, I'm no native speaker. But I thought, "if they were honest" expresses your opinion, they are not. And being not honest is more or less the same as being dishonest?

Language is always more than vocabulary and grammar, but also the feelings words are transporting. I'm aware of my limits to express myself in your language. Try mine 8-| just for a change. And so are the guys of PZ as well no native speakers. It doesn't matter how long one lives in another country, if it's not the one in one grew up, misunderstandings can and will occur. Especially, if I sound sometimes as if I knew what I'm writing. I just don't know better ">

Also, primes are compromises as well, just without another parameter zooms always have, which is different focus lengths. Would you agree, that each test site needs a bit interpretation to translate their results to your needs? Would you maybe as well agree that it's hard to write test results for people who have no idea how to interpret the numbers? A test is a couple of hours or days work. If one reader goes straight to the "conclusions" - which author can prevent that?

spraynpray

"It doesn't matter how long one lives in another country, if it's not the one in one grew up, misunderstandings can and will occur."

Absolutely true JJ. I lived in France for 8 years but it isn't the same as speaking in my native tongue.

kanuck

There might be some more Nikkor F4 zoom lenses coming in the near future. The 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200 are probably the first of this lineup. I would imagine a 24-70 F4 with VR might be in the making. The 80-400mm could be in the mix as well although it would be very pricey. Nikon leaves it's 24-70mm 2.8 model alone for nearly 10 years usually as was the case with the 28-70 beast. I feel your pain in terms of Nikkor 2.8 glass weight believe me...

PB_PM

I wonder why Nikon would release a 24-70mm F4, when the 24-120mm F4 already covers that range.

spraynpray

Who with a AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR would want to 'upgrade' to a 24-70 F4?

TaoTeJared

So, it's my misinterpretation of English language? Absolutely possible, I'm no native speaker. But I thought, "if they were honest" expresses your opinion, they are not. And being not honest is more or less the same as being dishonest?

After I wrote it I wondered about that. Your English is very good, but I could tell some nuances that didn't sound like native speakers. I am terrible with languages, and even native English speakers from different parts of the USA have different meanings for phrases. I remember when I heard the word "mash" in place of the word "push" and couldn't figure out what in the world someone was talking about. I can appreciate a similar event coming from a different language for sure.
--
I would refer many reviewers as honest but write opinions and descriptions of conclusions in a "grey area" between honest and dishonest. (I'll try a random sample that may translate better - Say you have something that is soft - you can describe it as "soft as butter", "soft as a pillow", "Soft as a babies bottom". Each three give one a different feeling/touch of the descriptor of "soft." "soft as butter" = cut through something easily, "soft as a pillow" = something compresses easily, "Soft as a babies bottom" = smooth to the touch. Each have a different meaning of "soft." )
--
Many reviewers will use descriptors/adjectives that take a stronger position toward the negative rather than a more neutral one. On another thread someone was worried that the 24-70 2.8 was not good enough for a D800 based on what they read. That is what I'm referring too. How on earth can someone think that? Then I read some reviews that were accurate but painted a premier lens as having extreme issues. If you had never used one, how would you know - right? If someone walks away from an article thinking that - than that writer failed to review the lens.

The use of words like harsh or pronounced will push a reader to think something is bad or extreme. Compared to a $5,000 lens it may be much more pronounced, but when all similar class lenses exhibit the same or close to the same results, you can't say it is harsh, when it is obviously normal for that group. That is what I take issue with and what I see many people pick up on and think it is bad when actually it is very good.

Good reviewers tend to see lenses that range in price from $150 - $15,000. If you use the best all the time, and then do a review of a $500 kit lens, yes it will look bad because your base line lens is 4x the cost. Now if you use mid-range priced lenses like most of us, the results of say the 24-85vr are quite good and much better than the lenses before it.

TaoTeJared

I don't see a 24-70mm F4 either. 3 lenses in that range is more than enough I think.
I could maybe see a 24-105 f/2.8-4 variable but I doubt it.

I think the only f/4 lens left to VR is a 300mm f4 VR then the whole advanced mid-range would be complete.

others
80(100)-400 f4-4.5vr - 5.6
400mm f5.6 vr. (this one is more of a desire than reality)

JJ_SO

@TaoTeJared: thank you for taking your time, now I understand better what you were concerning. As for PZ: when I first read their site, I wondered why they write in English although their names and webadress indicate none of them is English, American or another nation to be called native speaker. So I saw them courageous to offer their free services more than only some 90 million German speakers. And I guess they don't have the money to translate all their reviews and tech articles by native speakers. I know how much that costs because as technical writers we have to translate a lot of manuals in our office and we always ask translators who are "at home" in the target language.

So I will not fight for them because they are responsible for what they decide to write in as well as for what they tell their readers, but I will always ask for patience and tolerance for them, just because I see them doing a good job. At least, they tried to explain how they feel the word "average" contrary to it's use by English speakers.

But then, when I read one of these tests with flaws here and there I have a look at my old negatives, prints or slides and suddenly feel quite happy about some of my flawish lenses ;;) And I don't take it too serious. After all, we still would live on without photography.

JJ_SO

Who with a AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR would want to 'upgrade' to a 24-70 F4?

:-h *snipsnip* me! If it would be on the same level as the 70-200/4, I'll try to get rid of the 24-85 which is more the kit lens for a D600 to keep the price of a bundle low. I'd love to have a kit lens for the D800.