I don't think there are any bad lens. However, I would not invest in a D800 if I could not afford a better lens than the one mentioned, unless I limited myself to the 1.8 primes, like the 35 and 85 (or similar quality, you get the idea).
Also, I would get the 50 1.4G or 1.8G before that 35-70, zoom with my feet, save money and end up with a faster lens with better image quality than the 24-70 2.8.
. To me there are only a couple of lenses good enough for my professional work.
That makes sense, if you are a professional, were the cost of a $2,000 lens written off over say 5 years is not going to have a huge impact on your profit
But of a lot questions seem to come from people who new to digital photography and or with limited budgets I have feeling rather than buying a load of expensive lenses, they would be better off with a kit lens and discovering both their own and their equipment's limitations
I am the only person who does not understand "zooming with your feet" "
I often find my self with water in front of me and cliff, wall or road behind
In any case, moving closer or further away from the subject does not have the same effect as changing focal length
Using a 24-70 as an example: Taking a shot at 24 - filling the frame - and taking the shot at 70 - again filling the frame - will not get you the same shot. So zooming will not always give you what you want. You may have to move your lazy bones even if you have a zoom lens :-) That has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.
. To me there are only a couple of lenses good enough for my professional work.
That makes sense, if you are a professional, were the cost of a $2,000 lens written off over say 5 years is not going to have a huge impact on your profit
But of a lot questions seem to come from people who new to digital photography and or with limited budgets I have feeling rather than buying a load of expensive lenses, they would be better off with a kit lens and discovering both their own and their equipment's limitations
I am the only person who does not understand "zooming with your feet" "
I often find my self with water in front of me and cliff, wall or road behind
In any case, moving closer or further away from the subject does not have the same effect as changing focal length
I agree completely - like a lot of glib generalisations, reality isn't as simple as that.
Generalizations also come with fast lenses being 'better' for all, too.
Fast lenses do allow for more isolation of subject matter and, perhaps better bokeh, but it's also true that a smaller aperture might be better for sharper and deeper DOF - something that used to be in vogue.
I think most lenses are pretty good. Faster does mean you can see better in lower light, likely shoot better, too.
In the end, it depends upon what you're doing and who is doing it.
The only things I like about the 28mm F2.8 is how close it can focus, and how compact it is. It was terrible for landscape shots, but okay for some subjects. Modern kit lenses are better at the same focal length, so I cannot think of why anyone would want to try either.
If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Indeed. If you need to stop it down to 6.3 or smaller for vignetting etc, the kit lens will play it even and smaller kit lenses are light and have some zoom range.
What I find a little bit bizarre about the 2.8D is that, in my experience, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28 Ai-S, which is a much older set-up. The new 1.8G, only from what I've read, is the outright winner, but from my own experience the Ai-S is quite good and in-between on the timeline we have this red-headed stepchild D.
Indeed. If you need to stop it down to 6.3 or smaller for vignetting etc, the kit lens will play it even and smaller kit lenses are light and have some zoom range.
What I find a little bit bizarre about the 2.8D is that, in my experience, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28 Ai-S, which is a much older set-up. The new 1.8G, only from what I've read, is the outright winner, but from my own experience the Ai-S is quite good and in-between on the timeline we have this red-headed stepchild D.
The age of the lens has nothing to do with sharpness.
Physics does, and that hasn't changed in who knows how long.
I use the Nikon 24-120VR f/4 often when traveling, usually on a D800e, or on a D3x, and have been quite happy with the results as long as I stop down to f5.6 or f6.3 when longer than 70mm. I also use it for weddings, set at f5.6 with multiple flash.
My other travel zoom is the 24-70 f2.8 which is better, if I am pixel peeping on the D800, but not so apparent on the D3x.
I shoot for print, and regularly print large (16 X 24 - 24 X 36 on an HP Z3100 ). I can't judge colors on Msmoto's photo because it is of a print, and I have no Idea what the original looks like.
I do handle PP slightly differently for complex zooms than for simple 4-8 element primes, primarily saturation and midtone contrast.
If I could only have one lens for the D800 the I use the 24-120VR f/4 would be it.
Thankfully I have no such constraint.
... H
D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8. Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Comments
Also, I would get the 50 1.4G or 1.8G before that 35-70, zoom with my feet, save money and end up with a faster lens with better image quality than the 24-70 2.8.
But of a lot questions seem to come from people who new to digital photography and or with limited budgets
I have feeling rather than buying a load of expensive lenses, they would be better off with a kit lens and discovering both their own and their equipment's limitations
I am the only person who does not understand "zooming with your feet" "
I often find my self with water in front of me and cliff, wall or road behind
In any case, moving closer or further away from the subject does not have the same effect as changing focal length
Generalizations also come with fast lenses being 'better' for all, too.
Fast lenses do allow for more isolation of subject matter and, perhaps better bokeh, but it's also true that a smaller aperture might be better for sharper and deeper DOF - something that used to be in vogue.
I think most lenses are pretty good. Faster does mean you can see better in lower light, likely shoot better, too.
In the end, it depends upon what you're doing and who is doing it.
My best,
Mike
For sure….the who is doing it may be the biggest factor….
The f 64 group
For those who wonder:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm
Yes a skilled tog can get good results with it.
Why one would want to try is beyond me.
What I find a little bit bizarre about the 2.8D is that, in my experience, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28 Ai-S, which is a much older set-up. The new 1.8G, only from what I've read, is the outright winner, but from my own experience the Ai-S is quite good and in-between on the timeline we have this red-headed stepchild D.
Physics does, and that hasn't changed in who knows how long.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
|SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/set-72157630044833773/
My other travel zoom is the 24-70 f2.8 which is better, if I am pixel peeping on the D800, but not so apparent on the D3x.
I shoot for print, and regularly print large (16 X 24 - 24 X 36 on an HP Z3100 ). I can't judge colors on Msmoto's photo because it is of a print, and I have no Idea what the original looks like.
I do handle PP slightly differently for complex zooms than for simple 4-8 element primes, primarily saturation and midtone contrast.
If I could only have one lens for the D800 the I use the 24-120VR f/4 would be it.
Thankfully I have no such constraint.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.