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

sevencrossing

Sometimes I feel sorry for the guys at Nikon
They currently offer 3 midrange FX zooms plus an FX 18 -300 super zoom ( sorry I mean 28 -300)
They offer a range of f 4 vr high quality zooms covering 16mm to 400mm
They make some of the best primes in the world
For consumers, they make some of the best Bangs for Bucks Dx cameras and lenes
for Professionals they offer 2 of the best FX Cameras money can buy
and still you are not happy

JJ_SO

I don't feel sorry for the guys at Nikon - they demand a pretty amount of money for their miracles. And I guess, they just love to be challenged, so why should I disappoint them?

Just to put that straight: The 18-300 is DX, the 28-300 is not very useful at it's tele-end, 16-35 has a fat distortion, 200-400? If I can afford that, I surely can afford for carrying a sherpa on a day basis. And then, try the 24-85 for yourself and we speak again. Stopped down it appears to be weaker in it's corners than "normal" kit for DX.

Msmoto

My guess...a 24-70 f/4 VR would cost exactly what a 24-120mm f/4 VR costs. And, I cannot imagine why someone would not want the extra reach. There is no disadvantage that I can imagine unless a very slight weight/size advantage might be present. But, why?

JJ_SO

@Msmoto: have you tried the new VR of the 70-200/4? It's superb, I never had the chance before to hold 1/30 @ 200mm with a D800. I could think of a shorter lens, probably with macro function (then it will not be shorter or lighter than 24-120) with a smaller diameter than 24-120. But I guess, you're right, this range is already crammed.

sevencrossing

, 16-35 has a fat distortion, 200-400? If I can afford that, .

You are a difficult man to please

I can't cant think of any ultra wide angel, of any make, or format, that does not have distortion; But the 16 -35 can be corrected in LR to my satisfaction and that of my clients

No I cant afford a 200 -400 ether, but at least its there if / when I can

My 16 -35 more than earns its keep and so does the 24 -120

unfortunatly my commerical work does not call for 200 -400 but I am working on it

Msmoto

Hasselblad has a new camera called Lunar...and one can use all the Sony lenses....body is only $6500 but you get to choose the wood or carbon fiber....

JJ_SO

sevencrossing, I'm happy, no, I'm pleeeeeased with the 14-24 although it has distortion
For 35, I have the new Sigma prime - and am pleeeeeased, too.
Matter of fact, I'm really pleased with 10 lenses out of 11, but one has to be the weakest, hasn't it?
And you know, this amateurs like me are not so easy to please, but still good enough for Nikon to make a few extra bucks

Msmoto

The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM? How is it?

JJ_SO

Outstanding. I think that would be the simplest appropriate word for it. I love it, since I'm more the wide-angle type, and I had now the opportunity to use it in very dark light. Just great.

I'd be curious to shoot the same subject once with the 35/1.4G and once with the Sigma. Just to see what's going on bokehwise.

JJ_SO

Here's some sample of a comparison Sigma 35/1.4 with a Nikkor 24-85, both at 35, both at f/5. I know, it's unfair, but I know as well, which quality I prefer more.

Looks also with 24-85 okay

100% crop of the corner: Sigma

100% crop of the corner: Nikkor

Of course, the Nikkor offers the wider focus-length range and VR at a slightly lower price. It's just, that I use my cam a lot in low-light conditions. And the Sigma performs excellent there. Plus, the daylight pics are very good, too.

TaoTeJared

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.

No proble! -

Don't think for a moment they are offering all the work for free. They make money - I'm guessing good money. You don't create a site like that, the upkeep etc, without being able to have a support staff and make a living at it. From years of following the site, they do understand fully the words being used and what they mean. I have never seen a "lost in translation" moment from them. They may have a native speaker on staff or close to them or it is just their continual work in this area that they have just learned the meanings.
---

The sad part about people focusing so hard and fretting on lens reviews, is that they forget to go out and just shoot.

soap

I've used digital cameras (*cough* Canon *cough*) for concrete crack analysis. When we started out with this we tried to get the least distorting lenses possible, because every mm counts when studying a dam / levee.

We dismissed the idea of doing distortion correction through post-processing because we were afraid of adding another transformation to the image data - and losing acuity. So we used the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro. Blah blah blah we decided we wanted to increase pixel density w/o changing bodies so we switched to the 24-85 (so we could quickly go back to 50mm). Point being we went from much less than 1% distortion to well over 3% distortion, found we had to do software distortion correction, and found we didn't lose jack in terms of acuity. And this is with automated systems doing pixel-level analysis of the image.

Sorry, long story for a short point. Point being that if our software didn't think there was a significant acuity loss looking at pixels after doing distortion correction I rather doubt a person looking at a full picture will notice acuity loss. IOW let your software "cure" these lens "flaws" and don't mind them when shopping.

JJ_SO

Well, regarding the lens test of the 24-85 at PZ, the distortions were heavy. Regarding my own experiences with it, they didn't lose their heaviness. If I don't want to transfer my pictures from RAW to TIF and get 5 times bigger files in Aperture, I'm better off with less distorting lenses: But in general, I don't care too much if there's no straight line close to border in the picture which should stay straight.

So, for my amateur shooting I don't take software solutions as long as I don't get them natively. In the job, I always use ACR's profiles, because we have a bridge-camera in the office and I'm using my G11 for quick shots. The shots are technical, not very detailed and printed no bigger than 4 × 5 inches, with lots of straight lines and I want to have them straight - curved instead straight machinery parts is no sign of quality.

But a dam is already curved, isn't it?

soap

But a dam is already curved, isn't it?

If you want to determine mm-precision movements you better know that curve you see is not an artifact!

Symphotic

I've used digital cameras (*cough* Canon *cough*) for concrete crack analysis. When we started out with this we tried to get the least distorting lenses possible, because every mm counts when studying a dam / levee.

We dismissed the idea of doing distortion correction through post-processing because we were afraid of adding another transformation to the image data - and losing acuity. So we used the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro. Blah blah blah we decided we wanted to increase pixel density w/o changing bodies so we switched to the 24-85 (so we could quickly go back to 50mm). Point being we went from much less than 1% distortion to well over 3% distortion, found we had to do software distortion correction, and found we didn't lose jack in terms of acuity. And this is with automated systems doing pixel-level analysis of the image.

Sorry, long story for a short point. Point being that if our software didn't think there was a significant acuity loss looking at pixels after doing distortion correction I rather doubt a person looking at a full picture will notice acuity loss. IOW let your software "cure" these lens "flaws" and don't mind them when shopping.

+1. I use LR correction for high precision industrial photography and it does an excellent job for allowing quantitative measurements.

Msmoto

What does any of this have to do with the primary topic of discussion? Constant F/stop zoom?

JJ_SO

Well, it looks like the question appears "would you rather wish to buy a standard zoom with less distortion or one with bigger one to correct that afterwards in post?"

kanuck

I mentioned the 24-70mm F4 because I remember it being listed on Nikon rumors about a year ago as a possible lens for an all F4 lineup. I think it could be created still and would be significantly lighter than the 2.8 version. The 24-120 certainly makes an arguement for the need of such a lens though I agree.

Msmoto

Do the faster constant aperture zooms have more or less distortion than a slower, f/4 zoom?

JJ_SO

Difficult to predict. The 24-70/2.8 has the lowest distortion on it's high end of range, the 24-120/4 shows more at the wide end and also tele end but is quite ok at 35mm. And if Nikon also thinks "we provide Capture NX2 (and earn money with it) for correction of distortions and CAs, why make the lens better than it needs to be?", they could come out with a high resolving lens which needs to be post corrected.

manuela

They offer a range of f 4 vr high quality zooms covering 16mm to 400mm
They make some of the best primes in the world
For consumers, they make some of the best Bangs for Bucks Dx cameras and lenes
for Professionals they offer 2 of the best FX Cameras money can buy
and still you are not happy

So why does anybody use other brands than Nikon?

I once again took a look at the test results of the 24-120 and the 24-85 and thougt, f*** distortion and CAs. But the resolution at the longer end of the zoomrange is not that thrilling.

I think I will stick to my crummy old 28-105 which has nearly no distortion and is sharp (at least according to Bjorn Rorslett).

The discussion in this thread is really interesting, thanx,

Msmoto

@ manuela

The discussion is almost always interesting....but, you question regarding why someone would use other than Nikon glass....

The source of the glass used in the lens manufacturing is an influence on the final performance. The various paradigms in the minds of lens design and manufacturing people influences the outcome very strongly. What all this comes down to in so many cases is...How much money do you have?

An example....Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 ZF.2 is about $3,000. Why not use the Nikon 16-35mm as it is exceptionally sharp in my experience? The answer is the quality of contrast, color, distortion, all other little glitches with lenses. Some of these will be better with the Zeiss. Some characteristics may be better on the Nikkor. But individuals prefer one set of performance characteristics and thus buy the Zeiss. Others, may actually prefer the Nikkor. The one inalienable fact in shooting photos is the photographer will be responsible for 90% of the end result, the equipment only allows a pathway to achieve this.

JJ_SO

Well, that's philosophical and I dare to disagree with 90% of photographers responsibility. Why?

Few photographers are designing and manufacturing their equipment themselves. But they can decide to participate (=buy or rent) the efforts others have done. If you need special equipment for your ideas and it is not available - what then? Are you responsible for the non-availability?
Some situations are clearly out of the range of the photographer - he/she can't create thunderstorms, floods, even a normal forrest is difficult to create.

To me, 90% of responsibility does ignore the sheer coincidence far too much and leads to the idea, it's only a question of will to get the picture you want. It is not. It's a question of being prepared as good as possible, but you're not in control of all circumstances or 9/10 of it.

Msmoto

I saw a wonderful documentary on wildlife photography. It is about the willingness to invest the time. In all of my 50 years of photographic experience...it is about my willingness to invest the time. I understand if one does not have the $20,000 for the African Safari, one will not get the images they capture on these. But, my point is, during the actual process of utilizing the equipment, 90% of the outcome is in the photographer's hands, and this meson one must wait...for the birds, people, animals, lightning, rain, etc.

I cannot think of any piece of equipment which I might need which is not available.

JJ_SO

I cannot think of any piece of equipment which I might need which is not available.

I can. How about stereo glasses with high resolution and photographing with a blink of the eye-lid? What abput a lytro with sufficient resolution, but still small size? What about a Nikon DSLR with a touchscreen? But 100% waterproof?

And as for the 90%, I don't think you got my point - but doesn't matter, there's enough space on this planet for different opinions.