12-27-2010, 12:45 AM
[quote name='Denis' timestamp='1293407377' post='5216']
Now, I want a zoom lens that is as sharp as or almost as sharp as my 105mm but I understand that there's compromises with zoom lens.
[/quote]
Of course, but there are always compromises with lenses, including the 105 VR. If you want prime-like quality from a zoom lens, the f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkors are all up there.
I don't think Canon has anything as good as the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 Nikkors.
That's not really a professional lens, or even a high-grade lens. Wide range zooms (i.e. 4x-5x) are inferior to primes and to narrow-range zooms. For high quality, stick with 3x or less in terms of maximum vs. minimum focal length of a zoom.
Well the 24-120/4 isn't exactly "cheap". They are responding to user requests for f/4 constant zooms. Whether they're producing successful designs can be debated.
The 80-400 is generally considered to be optically superior to the 70-300 VR, which is quite soft at 300mm, but there is of course a significant cost difference and the latter has better implemented VR and AF.
"Might seem good?" It's a class leading optical design. Of course it doesn't have VR. VR is almost useless in this focal length range and would require a more complex, heavier, and probably inferior optical design. The 24-70 is heavy as it is.
I have the f/2.8 zooms and the 24-120/4. For landscape and other still subjects, tripod-based shots with the 24-120/4 are significantly sharper than those made hand-held with the help of VR. The same is true for the 70-200 II and other VR designs. VR is a help in specific situations and those just don't happen often for the 24-70 range since to stop subject movement you have to use a faster speed than is required to avoid hand shake. I've found that the 24-120/4 gives pretty good results down to 1/50s hand-held if the subjects are small in the frame, and occasionally allows a good result at down to 1/15s, however, the variability in the quality of the results when hand-held with VR is considerable. I've managed a shot at 120mm at 1/15s which is perfeclt sharp but then consequtive shots made at 50mm at the same shutter speed all are ruined by subject blur. Personally I think it's a waste of my time to risk it with VR and a slow shutter speed. I prefer certainty and that's what I get by using an f/2.8 or faster lens and going 1/200s or faster with the shutter speed. I lose depth of field (can be a good or bad thing, depending on shot), but I gain a much higher percentage of success. I think it would be a huge mistake for Nikon to put VR in a 24-70/2.8 replacement. Luckily they don't read internet forums but discuss things with real users.
With DX there can be some use for VR even at 70mm though. I'm writing this from the point of view of an FX user since these are FX lenses.
Now, I want a zoom lens that is as sharp as or almost as sharp as my 105mm but I understand that there's compromises with zoom lens.
[/quote]
Of course, but there are always compromises with lenses, including the 105 VR. If you want prime-like quality from a zoom lens, the f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkors are all up there.
Quote:Now I'm finding that Canon might have better lenses then Nikon.
I don't think Canon has anything as good as the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 Nikkors.
Quote:Especially after the review on a professional lens like the 24-120mm F4.
That's not really a professional lens, or even a high-grade lens. Wide range zooms (i.e. 4x-5x) are inferior to primes and to narrow-range zooms. For high quality, stick with 3x or less in terms of maximum vs. minimum focal length of a zoom.
Quote:Are they making cheap lenses just to match canon's focal length (this case 24-105mm).
Well the 24-120/4 isn't exactly "cheap". They are responding to user requests for f/4 constant zooms. Whether they're producing successful designs can be debated.
Quote:I've even considered the 80-400mm but see that it doesn't have good reviews. I saved some money and I can buy another lens. Maybe I should buy the 70-200mm, or maybe the 70-300mm. I heard good reviews on the 70-300mm and it's cheap.
The 80-400 is generally considered to be optically superior to the 70-300 VR, which is quite soft at 300mm, but there is of course a significant cost difference and the latter has better implemented VR and AF.
Quote:The 24-70 F2.8 might seem good but it doesn't have VR. I don't know anymore.
"Might seem good?" It's a class leading optical design. Of course it doesn't have VR. VR is almost useless in this focal length range and would require a more complex, heavier, and probably inferior optical design. The 24-70 is heavy as it is.
I have the f/2.8 zooms and the 24-120/4. For landscape and other still subjects, tripod-based shots with the 24-120/4 are significantly sharper than those made hand-held with the help of VR. The same is true for the 70-200 II and other VR designs. VR is a help in specific situations and those just don't happen often for the 24-70 range since to stop subject movement you have to use a faster speed than is required to avoid hand shake. I've found that the 24-120/4 gives pretty good results down to 1/50s hand-held if the subjects are small in the frame, and occasionally allows a good result at down to 1/15s, however, the variability in the quality of the results when hand-held with VR is considerable. I've managed a shot at 120mm at 1/15s which is perfeclt sharp but then consequtive shots made at 50mm at the same shutter speed all are ruined by subject blur. Personally I think it's a waste of my time to risk it with VR and a slow shutter speed. I prefer certainty and that's what I get by using an f/2.8 or faster lens and going 1/200s or faster with the shutter speed. I lose depth of field (can be a good or bad thing, depending on shot), but I gain a much higher percentage of success. I think it would be a huge mistake for Nikon to put VR in a 24-70/2.8 replacement. Luckily they don't read internet forums but discuss things with real users.
With DX there can be some use for VR even at 70mm though. I'm writing this from the point of view of an FX user since these are FX lenses.