Options For lens Upgrades DX to FX

spraynpray

Found this thread on the old forum and wondered if posting on it brings it to the new forum - answer? No. It disappeared into the ether!

I am thinking of turning over my lenses for FX versions and find the choice in the mid range is between the Nikon mid range 24-120 f4, 24-85(s) 24-70 f2.8 and the new-ish Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lenses. According to DXO mark the Tamron whoops the 24-120 AND 24-70 Nikons, anybody have any views on that? I am thinking 16-35 f4 Nikon and 24-70 Tammy - does anybody have any better non-Nikons at the lower end? I don't want the flare problems that I see often in images taken with the 14-24 so am open to suggestion on whatever is as good or at least close.

I may be forced to go for the 70-200 Nikon as it looks like the Tammy version is disappointing - any ideas on something close from anybody else? Sigma is about the only manufacturer I will not use.

If no personal knowledge is available then perhaps just a recommendation to a good lens testing site would be helpful.

To mainly fund this I will be selling all my other FX and DX lenses from ultra wide zoom through fast primes to telephoto zoom and I need to not spend too much so bare that in mind please. ">

Thx.

Msmoto

Of course...my usual answer....set a budget. Then think about what focal length you like best and start there.

I have recently been doing an inventory and going over which of the lenses I really like. And, lately shooting the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

I have looked at the Tamron.....and I might even give consideration of selling my 24-120 Nikkor and get the Tammy if the user reports hold out. This would be IMO the logical place to start with FX glass.

The 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor is superb as well. Love it.

flight3

I may be forced to go for the 70-200 Nikon as it looks like the Tammy version is disappointing - any ideas on something close from anybody else? Sigma is about the only manufacturer I will not use. .

I've heard both good and bad about the Tamron 70-200mm, but you might want to consider the Sigma version (70-200mm 2.8), which is definitely not a bad lens. I can't compare it to the Nikon version, but for the price difference I don't see myself "upgrading" to the Nikon version.

cholson

while i try not to give final judgement on a lens i haven't tried personally, the test shots i've seen from the tamron are hit and miss (with the bokeh not pleasing at all). i recommend googling tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and making a judgement for yourself

i my opinion, the nikon 24-70 f/2.8 still rules this category. that is, until they release a new version... soon? a lot of people love the 24-120 f/4 lens, i tried it but decided to wait for the 24-70 f/2.8 update instead (better fits my needs)

i too am looking to upgrade my wide angle lens from DX to FX and am tempted by the 14-24mm but the filter options (or limited options) are pushing me towards the 16-35 f/4. it's not optically as amazing, but being able to drop my 77mm variable ND filter on it for video is too hard to pass up. i'd love to see tokina develop a FX variant of their 11-16mm (that accepts filters... the version they have has the same issue as the nikon 14-24mm)

good luck with your upgrade

starralazn

i'd say it depends on what you have and what you shoot.
for me, moving up from a consumer midrange d5k to a d800 was a big jump. what pushes you to pickup 2.8 zooms, professional work? or desire for the 'best' glass? can you make do with primes?
if you have a habit of pixel peeping or are working professionally, there shouldn't be anything stopping you from picking up those lens you have listed. if its just a hobby... that's another story.

price compromises ( 24-85mm nikkor and 3rd party standard zooms vs 24-70mm nikkor, etc) will always feel not as much as a joy to shoot with. how much does this matter to you?

Hallvardk

I've heard both good and bad things about the Tamron 70-200 2.8, but I can say that both the Nikon and the Sigma is top notch. Sigma's 70-200 2.8 is a great lens, although some steps behind the nikon version (VR II). Personally, I like the constant aperture, so I would rather go with the 24-120 f/4 over the 28-85.

I also have to agree with Msmoto and say that the 16-35 F/4 VR is a superb lense. A bit wide for your use, but you should look into it when you're going for a wide angel zoom.

sevencrossing

According to DXO mark the Tamron whoops the 24-120 AND 24-70 Nikon, anybody have any views on that? .

there is a whole thread on DXO

as far as I can make out, DOX does not take into account, build quality, VR effectiveness, focus accuracy or speed or reliability

The 24-120 AND 24-70 Nikon, are two of Nikon's top lens . I have the 24 -120 and love it


The 70 -120 is another great lens but if you need something longer, look a the amazing new 80 -400

Budget????? sorry

TaoTeJared

I rented the non vr 28-75 and thought it was good, and tried the VC for a weekend of shooting and it was very good, sharp, as it should be. I really noticed the vignetting and that got annoying. It seems the VC greatly improved on it, and I have seen many Canon shooters with them. I got about 2 stops on the VC more than non-vc. I have used both 17-50s and thought they were very good as well. I have never liked the Sigma in this rage.

The only 2 impressions I got was that they didn't seem "as well built" as the Nikkor and the VC engaged slower than Nikon's VR. In my mind I buy Nikon lenses that are my work horses because I know they will last through bangs, bumps and drops. For a non-workhorse lens or one that is not going to "war" I think it is a really good option.

The other thing to keep in mind that the Auto settings (iso, A,S,P) all work much better with Nikon products. I did have a few exposures really go wonky. Turn of camera and back on, and it was fine. I have had that happen with every Tamron and most Sigma lenses. Never had them long enough to know why.

My 70-200 is the Nikkor VR1 since I use it all the time - that should be an option as well.
I just don't use the 24-70 lenses much at all (I use primes) except for walk around so my vote goes to the 24-120vr f/4 which is a fantastic lens. If I need the bokeh, I have the primes for that.

spraynpray

Thanks for your advice so far guys. My budget is as small as possible, I am starting with the lengths I shoot mainly (16-35 then 24-70 then 70/80-200/400). Of course good build quality and feel is important to me but when one has champagne taste and beer money there must be compromises and I am finding that the lack of biting sharpness in my photography is spoiling it now. The problem is my main use is the 18-105 kit lens and when I use the 70-300 VR it is at 300 where it is disappointing.

The other and main reason is that the D800 is getting to the best part of the envelope for buying so one day if I can scrape the necessary £ together......

I will not want problems like Tao is outlining he has had with every non-Nikon lens, that will be a constant reminder of not getting Nikon.

This thread was triggered by me exploring DXO Mark who say the Tammy 24-70 is the best and their marks reflect that is waaaay better than the 24-120 f4 which was my choice until I read that. They say it is even a bit better than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and at a fraction of the price so it seemed perfect. I like zooms and only expect to replace the ones that I have after some time and with different ones. That is why I would prefer to use faster zooms.
To sum up, why do the numbers on DXO Mark indicate a big difference between the 24-70 Tammy and the 24-120 Nikon but people here really rate the Nikon? The 16-35 and 24-120 would suit 98 per cent of my shooting but are there better choices for the price?

racheldistad

I've been looking at 24-120 nikon, but I can only afford the vr1, I'm debating if there's enough of a difference.. To justify spending that much. That said, I don't like non nikon lens, I'm not sure why.

Doesn't the dxomark scores not include VR or speed?

sevencrossing

the old 24 - 120 did not get good reviews. KR voted it one of Nikon worst lenses
the optics in the VR II are completely differant to the vrI
the new 24 -120 vrII is one of Nikons best lenes

racheldistad

Ah okay, thank you

haroldp

The Nikon 24-70 / 2.8 never disappoints, any f stop or length. It is called 'the beast' for a reason, and has no VR.

The new 24-120 is in a completely different class than the old one and is my new 'walk around' lens, but longer than 70 mm needs to stop down to f 5.6 for critical sharpness. VR partly makes up for slower lens opening but does nothing for subject motion.

Either Nikon 70-200 is excellent except for pixel peeping. At 200mm my 70-200 VR v1 is critically sharp at F3.2 (1/23 stop down from 2.8) and I use it regularly for theater work using available stage lighting (D88e at ISO 6400 downsampled to 12mp in PP).

If I did not already have the 14-24 f2.8 I would get the 16-35 f4 in preference. This is a size / weight / filter issue as the 14-24 is optically outstanding.

The new 80-400 is amazing.

Don't ignore Nikons f1.8 primes, ( 50, 85 ) they are reasonably priced and excellent.

Similarly the 70-300 VR is very good and reasonably pricred, remeber to stop it to F8 longer than about 135 mm.

In the past I have tried Sigma and Tamron and been bitten by extreme variation in samples, so am not impressed with how a selected sample performs in tests.

It appears that their QA is getting better from reports on this forum which I am watching with great interest.

...... H

spraynpray

OK, here are my latest thoughts: Flog my 11-16 Tok, 35/1.8 Nik, 50/1.4 Nik, 18-105 Nik and 70-300 Nik and get 16-35 VR and 85/1.8 followed by 24-120 VR later and 80-400 (old) later still. That will leave me nicely poised to get the D800 when the next round of rebates come round. Sorted. What do yous guys think? I would love to get the 24-120 sooner but my marriage is worth more :P

spraynpray

@sevencrossing: If I buy the 24-120 what is the difference between it and the old version - I need to be sure I don't get the old one...

Thx.

PB_PM

The old 24-120mm VR is variable aperture (3.5-5.6), so no way to mix them up.

My take. Get the 16-35mm, the 24-120mm F4 and keep the 70-300mm VR for now. It actually performs rather well on FX.

spraynpray

Ah, thanks PB.

Re: the 70-300, I use it flat out all the time so it is soft. I'd rather a 300 prime or an 80-400 I reckon.

sevencrossing

The new 80 -400 is brilliant, the old one does not get particular good reviews, by all accounts the focusing is very slow , the focusing on the new one is blisteringly fast
The results from the 70 -300 should better on fx unless youare cropping at 300mm
what will you be doing with the 85 1.8?

spraynpray

I can't see me getting the nice new expensive 80-400 seven. I'd love it but nah - ain't gonna happen.

The 85 would be portraits and close-up with tubes. I guess I ought to have at least the one fast prime :P

sevencrossing

Remember you will be able to crack up the ISO quite a lot with the D800 so do you really need a fast prime ?
My preferred portrait lens is the 70 -200 f 2.8
but the 24 -120 is fine
would your budget stretch to the 105MM f/2.8G IF-ED AF S VR II Micro, rather then the 85

PB_PM

Ah, thanks PB.

Re: the 70-300, I use it flat out all the time so it is soft. I'd rather a 300 prime or an 80-400 I reckon.

Have you checked the focus on it? My copy is decently sharp, not sharp like my 300mm F4, but considering the price the 70-300mm VR does very well.

tman

Out of curiosity, where is it soft on yours? I just bought the 70-300Vr anticipating a move to FX in the next year.
I get to test it on DX (D7000) this weekend.-- Just trying to figure if I got a bad copy (was a refurb from Cameta). I had the older ED version (not G) which wasn't as sharp as prime lenses 85-180 but gave me sharp images with pretty decent contrast at <200mm. By 300mm it softened a little so I never used it at 300mm.

spraynpray

Mine was ok up to 240-250 then soft from there up. I wish Nikon had made it soft at the wide end because I hardly use it less than 200. I read too that the non VR's were not good.

spraynpray

OK, further thoughts: I just checked the scores of lenses on DxOMark and found they improved greatly when tested on the D800 as opposed to the D7000. This means that I have a second way: Upgrade the body now, stay in crop mode for the 11-16, 35 and 18-105 kit lens until I change them and go full res for the 650/1.4, 60/2.8 and 70-300 and I can see what they can do before I sell 'em.

Can you give me your thoughts on that course of action please gents?

Golf007sd

You asked so here is path for you to consider:

1) Get the D800 now and be done with it...the sooner you start playing with it the better you will get and you will have a smile on your face for a good long time; hence, every time you shoot with it :P
2) Sell all your current lenses and don't put to much weight on all this DxOmark stuff. Let your eyes be the judge.
3) In order to take full advantage of your new D800 sensor consider these lenses and by all means don't short change yourself. 1) Nikon 85 1.8, Nikon 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 VRII. Keep and eye out for a good used 24-70.

spraynpray

I knew I could rely on you to break the bank Golf - surprised you missed out the 14-24 though!

I am seriously thinking D800 first followed quickly by 24-120 then 85/1.8. If I were to go telephoto zoom some time after that it would be 80-400 or the 200-500 Tammy as the trinity lenses would lead to divorce.... if I'm not already getting too close.... 8-|