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

Msmoto

manuela

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

I can. A standard zoom lens (24-xx, xx>=70) with excellent resolution (good at borders and in the corners at open aperture), constant open aperture, low CAs and weight <=700g. I would make compromises with distortion and vignetting.

sevencrossing

So why does anybody use other brands than Nikon?

In many cases other brands are cheaper

Some reasons I prefer Nikon lens ( based on my own personal experience, not on someone else's reviews )

1 High build quality
2 very good vibration reduction
3 fast focusing
4 good investment , many of older lens are worth more now, than I paid for them)
5 I just like the "feel" of them

But hey, it's free world, buy what ever rocks your boat or what ever Ren Crockwell or Bjorn Rorslett recommends

my next lens will hopefully be a 400mm f 2.8; anyone know of "another brand" alternative
( no I Cant afford the Sigma 200-500)

Msmoto

@ sevencrossing

Have you or anyone ever even seen images from the Sigma 200-500? I cannot imagine a zoom plus teleconverter will be excellent in sharpness, or worth $25,000. But, if images are available which show something I am unaware of, I would love to see them.

shawnino

I've never even seen the Sigma 200-500. I assume it exists but I cannot figure out who would use it. $26K and more astonishingly 34.5 lbs.
If I ever thought I had the need, I could replace that with the 400 f/2.8, plus the 200 f/2, plus an extra D4 for the second lens, and save not only $3,000 but 12 lbs in weight.

Symphotic

.... 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...

Absolutely! Time is more valuable than lenses! Standard zoom lenses are a shortcut for what would be a more difficult and time consuming shot with a 35 or 50 mm prime. Until last year I used a 35 mm lense where today I am using my 24-70 for the same types of shots, and the time I save justifies the cost.

The OP is waiting for a standard zoom with constant aperture, even though there are two excellent lenses of this type from Nikon and some excellent third party lenses as well. Because the 24-70 is a few years old and has too wide an aperture it is unacceptable. Because the 24-120 has some easily corrected distortion, it is also unacceptable.

To answer the OP: no, I am not waiting for another standard zoom lens. I am too busy using the ones I have, and making money with them as well. My father used to tell me that the right tool for the job could be important, but sometimes you can get the job done faster with what you have on hand then spending time looking for (or waiting for) a better tool.

Time! For me and my clients, our end product is not the photo or video itself, but the published material that the photo is put into. That needs to be done as quickly as possible, and the current set of lenses and bodies from Nikon, and software from Adobe, is fast.

spraynpray

The threads sure do meander since the new forum came along - what happened to the "Hey - stick to the topic" police?

TaoTeJared

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).

Bjorn's review on that lens was almost 20 years ago. CAs from 20 years ago were much worse than they are now, but at the time, it was very good, but it has much more than the 24-120 f/4.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but all the help offered seems to be passing you buy (language or other) - Your extreme focus on CAs and Distortion is ridiculous and what you keep believing it is bad on these lenses is false. It is actually very good, and very well controlled. They exist because for them not to, you would have a $5,000-$50,000 lens that was so large you wouldn't want to hand hold it.

JJ_SO

Well, it's good you "don't mean to sound harsh". :-w

Maybe you reread your text tomorrow. I don't think she wrote her CA stuff to offend especially you and if she can't find her lens, what is that bothering you? All answers are based on good-will, so take it easy and don't get angry.

Ironheart

Back on topic. Has anyone tried the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS macro? It is lightweight, and gets okay reviews. Stopped down to f/4 it is better optically, and would remain constant aperture.

shawnino

I have read interesting things about the Sigma and would also like to know of first hand experiences, but my goodness I get turned off when a variable-aperture zoom lens gets marketed as a "macro". Maybe I'm totally out to lunch but to me that cannot possibly pass the smell test. Would love to be proven wrong.

TaoTeJared

JJ_SO - what Manuela is saying is not offensive nor anything close to that. It is simply stated that if Manuela believes that if it is not good enough, there is not a lens made, or will probably be made in the next 10-15 years that will be much better. It is the pure physics of light transmission engineers are trying to correct which they have been working on for over 100 years. It is not an easy feat. To ignore that reality is unrealistic.

... I get turned off when a variable-aperture zoom lens gets marketed as a "macro".

It seems that Sigma and other call any lens that can focus close, a macro. I have never seen any of them ever get to 1:1 like a true macro. Sigma's real macro's are very good though.

sevencrossing

I've never even seen the Sigma 200-500. I assume it exists

yes it exits, I saw one at Focus on Imaging a few years ago
good for "bragging rights" and better than any press pass , but that's about it

Golf007sd

OK just finished reading this entire post. And I have to agree with Symphotic (100% well said), msmoto (I too have access to all the lenses for my type of photography), TTJ (I see your point and agree 100%), JJ_OS.....your English is fine, I understand you perfectly....yet I did not see your recommendation for manuela.

@manuela: Within Nikon's current line-up of lens, the one that will suit your needs is the 24-120 F4. If you have not tried it yourself, then by all means go get your hands on it, spend a good portion of the day shooting with it and then see if suits your needs. If weight is an issue for you, then get yourself a prime and use your feet as your zoom. You have to work at getting the shoot you seek, it is not going to come to you by just standing there. If neither of these are acceptable for you then just wait...but between you and me, you are going to miss out on some great shoots....

As far as all the CA and distortion goes, I find it hard to believe that a single image does not go out for print or on the web, were its intent is to be used to promote or inform the general public at large, that is not edit in some sort of post processing or retouching. Thus, this whole CA/distortion becomes mute and service only those that seek to have a conversation about optical flaws. The best lenses in the world are in your eyes and they too are flawed!

JJ_SO

It was not a recommendation for Manuela, I just don't see a real reason for getting upset with her - okay, I know this kind of questions, when someone asks, but don't want to listen to answers (maybe) or all possible answers are given and still insisting "yes but not in the way I want to have it!" and I for myself got annoyed, too. It just doesn't get better after speaking straight words. Her insight has to come from her.

I know how it is to live in a small place and others telling you, get this or that, and before I read "this or that are sort of okayish/have flaws/can focus slowly in a special kind of moonlight", whatever. @-) after a while you feel your one question got grandchildren.

And guys from America: You've no idea how easy it is for you to order the lens/es in question at lensrentals, play around with it for a week and knowing with certainty, you'll become happy with it. In Europe (and the name sounds European to me) there's nothing like that. Sigma has a kind of rental service, for instance the 120-300 is 440$ the first week. Now check the price at lensrentals.

JJ_SO

Back on topic. Has anyone tried the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS macro? It is lightweight, and gets okay reviews. Stopped down to f/4 it is better optically, and would remain constant aperture.

Is it already available somewhere? Her in Switzerland I only could find the 17-70/2.8-4.5, not the new redesigned one (17-70/2.8-4).

adamz

@msmoto - I not even seen images, I've also shot one (though on Canon 5 mk II) and... it's a BIG GUN. images are awesome, bokeh at 500mm is phenomenal and the biggest disadvantage of this lens is not it's price but portability. Stating this in other way, if I had the money for it I would get it w/o hesitation.

@JJ_SO - +1, it's hard to compare renting lenses in Europe and in US. Over here (in Europe) sometimes it's cheaper to buy a lens, use it for some time and then sell it than to rent it from ... Sigma, as no other lenses can be rented.

Msmoto

@ Adam.....Big Gun, huh..... The expense is in hiring the person to cary it around...... :-))

The renting of lenses is great for those who are bright enough to plan out their shooting schedule. But, if one is like me, when the energy, motivation is high enough...go....then rental is maybe not so good.

On topic, however, the eventual transition to a camera without the need for a large mirror box will no doubt precipitate the advent of some interesting lenses. And, we might see the same "pro" line and "consumer" line from Nikon. So, all the youngsters (below 50 years old) should be around to see a phenomenal set of new glass from all the camera manufacturers. And, when a rear focus distance does not need to be maintained for the mirror, the cost and quality will be improved dramatically. IMO only....

spraynpray

I have just today been hearing that the Olympus OMD micro 4/3rds glass is among and even in front of the best in the world period. That came from a guy who has sold off his 1DX and all the best and biggest glass that went with it and bought a handfull of OMD's and all the system glass to go with them for a tiny froaction of the cost of the C*non stuff. If going mirrorless means a jump in quality and a drop in price like that, bring it on. 9fps too.

shawnino

s-n-p: That's fascinating. Anytime somebody puts his money where his mouth is like that, at minimum, I'm intrigued.

As for me, well I don't mean to come off like a luddite, but I think we're already starting to bump up against useful technical maxima and the key will be "cheaper". Also maybe "more compact", which is technical, but I think cheaper is the big one.On the technical side sure, I'm all for even better results at high ISO, faster AF, shallower DOF for those who need it, lighter lenses, and anything else, but we're starting to bump into real-world constraints like
--how big we print
--better software for post
--the limitations of the human eye
etc.

Is Olympus' new stuff better than my Nikkor-D lenses? Perhaps, but for what I do my glass is good enough. So I'm not interested in switching...unless it's cheaper and I'm essentially getting paid to switch, like s-n-p's colleague. I'll never have the cash to pay $8-$9K for Nikkor 400mm f/2.8. If somebody's someday going to tell me I can get similar results for $3K, well, I'll ask that person to tell me more.

spraynpray

Straight up shawnino - the guys credentials (his name is Scott Bourne (google him) BTW - he isn't my colleague) are well known. He sold his whole 'L' lens collection from an 800 f5.6 down and says he is getting better results from his Oly lenses. What is more, he actually paid his own money for the bodies and lenses - only the second camera he hasn't been given apparently. He says a $1000 Oly lens out performs his $8000 C*non one.

He loves that he can carry two bodies and his entire lens collection in an ordinary bag!

JJ_SO

About distortion and post-correction... I love Roger's posts: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/you-can-correct-it-in-post-but

PB_PM

@spraynpray I read the same report last night. Scott Bourne made a few key points about M4/3s system, that I also discovered when I had a M4/3s camera (I was thinking of downsizing last year): 1. Very good for still subjects, landscapes, studio type work, 2. Too slow and/or almost useless for moving subjects, 3. Primes are good, zooms are generally poor.

spraynpray

Hey PB, I caught it on the TWIP podcast number 288 - take a listen - he doesn't say anything bad - says sharpest lenses, great tonality through ISO1600, etc.etc.

TaoTeJared

I have just today been hearing that the Olympus OMD micro 4/3rds glass is among and even in front of the best in the world period.

Olympus has always had good cameras and great glass. Many seem to forget brands like Olympus, Fuji & Pentax were near the top and their glass was always very high end. I do keep looking at the OMD E-m5 and Fuji X100 as options since I would like a more compact body outside of main hobby/work.

Depending on your work - they might be a good option. Some work especially with strobes, it may not cut it.

The Oly is not cheap with the high end primes though.
The High-end M4/3rds lenses:

24mm equiv - M.Zuiko Lens 12mm f2.0 $799.99
50mm equiv - Lumix® G Micro 4/3 LEICA DG SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 ASPH. $629.99
90mm equiv - M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f1.8 $399.99
150mm equiv - M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 $899.99


14-28 equiv - Lumix® G VARIO 7-14mm/F4.0 ASPH. $1,199
24-70 equiv - LUMIX® G X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. $1,299
70-200 equiv - LUMIX® G X VARIO 35-100mm / F2.8 ASPH. $1,499

90mm Equiv - Lumix® G LEICA DG MACRO-ELMARIT 45mm / F2.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. Lens $899
16mm equiv - Lumix® G FISHEYE 8mm / F3.5 Lens $799

200-600mm equiv - Lumix® G VARIO 100-300mm / F4.0-5.6 / MEGA O.I.S. Lens $599

Just over $9,000 for the whole lot. Similar Nikon lenses you would be close to double that.