[quote name='Lord Beau' timestamp='1294162954' post='5347']
D'you know, I'm tempted to go over to the Canon 5D Mkii because at least the 24-105 commands SOME respect....
[/quote]
Well, depends on your definition of respect ... and I admit, I haven't had the new 24-120/4 in my hands
yet ... nevertheless, from the reviews, I don't see the Canon and the Nikkor lens are far apart.
Both have their shortcommings ... both will do a fine job in the hands of someone looking
for a standard zoom with extended range (sacrificing the f/2.8 for f/4 and IS/VR) ... both have
cheaper competition that covers the same (or nearly the same in the case of Canon) range.
It seems to me, this lens (the Nikkor) along with the 16-35/4 VR and eventually a 70-200/4VR in the future
is an answer to Canons 4L-line of zoomlenses (17-40 + 24-105 + 70-200).
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Lord Beau' timestamp='1294162954' post='5347']
at least the 24-105 commands SOME respect....
[/quote]
Are you the lord of zooms? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='ilkka_nissila' timestamp='1293576724' post='5255']
If the vignetting is quantified by finding the point in the gray scale (of known density, positioned in the center of the image) which matches the luminosity of the corner of the image studied, then the resulting EV values are independent of the post-processing used in the camera and remain unaffected by any uniformly applied post-processing.[/quote]
I think you're suggesting that they don't use a digital sensor for measuring vignetting?
[quote name='ilkka_nissila' timestamp='1293576724' post='5255']
Increase contrast? The vignetting gets stronger in visual appearance ...
[/quote]
That's what PZ says
[quote name='ilkka_nissila' timestamp='1293576724' post='5255']
Zeiss reports vignetting as a...
[/quote]
I didn't know Zeiss discovered vignetting ;D
[quote name='ilkka_nissila' timestamp='1293576724' post='5255']
This procedure is a little harder to do, but it produces values that are immediately meaningful and comparable across sites and camera systems, when the experiment is correctly carried out.
[/quote]
Nopes... you can't compare across camera systems because of things like the differences in sensor response curves. You can't directly compare across different sites because not everyone follows the exact same process, although each site might follow a process that is acceptable.
GTW
<<The question may be whether the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR is really so much worse. I doubt so actually>>
Actually, the original 24-120VR is a terrible lens. It came as a kit with my D700 heavily discounted but I still took it back after a few days. Very soft and terrible contrast. I tend to think the new one is better from what I've seen!
I was playing with the Canons 24-105 f4 today along with Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens. I am confused on why the Canon gets 4 stars for mechanical and the Nikon gets 4 and a half. If anything, the Nikon ought to be 3 and a half and the Canon 4 and half. Unless of course there is something about the Nikon that I don't know about?
Also, the 2 and a half star rating for the optical, I am not so sure... it has less distortion at the wide end, of course it is countered by pincushion at the long end. the vignetting, unless I am reading the charts wrong, isn't far off than the canons (even considering the extra contrast Canon's Jpegs have).
The bokeh on the Canons seems to be much worse too. The Nikon has a lot of lateral chromatic aberrations, but of course it is easily fixed.
I think should update the ratings (Full frame) to:
Canon 24-105 f/4
Optical: 3
Mechanical: 4 and half
Value: 3 half
Nikon 24-120 f/4
Optical: 3
Mechanical: 3 and half or 4
Value: 2 and half or 3 (due to the price drop)
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
Regarding the optical quality, I see it below the 24.105 IS in summary. Yes, it has less barrel distortion at the short end, but I consider the large amount of pincushion distortion at the longer focal lengths to be more annoying in the field. And I don't see the Canon far behind in terms of bokeh quality. Both are not really great in this regard.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302689007' post='7589']
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
-- Markus
[/quote]
I do see why, it is in no relation to the rating of the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM rating of the same (mechanical quality).
The Canon is better constructed, yet gets a lower rating. Ergo, either don't give ratings, or make sure the ratings are actually consistent with practice.
From the Canon lens review:
"The build quality of this lens is excellent thanks to quality materials and tight tolerances. There's no significant wobbling of the inner lens tube and both the zoom and focus control rings operate very smooth. The lens has been designed to survive in harsh conditions due to sealings against dust and moisture. The conventional zoom mechanism extends towards the long end of the range. The front element does not rotate during focusing so there're no issues when using a polarizer - without hood at least."
And:
"A ring-type USM AF drive based on a front-focusing system is responsible for an extremely fast AF speed and low AF noise. The AF accuracy of the tested sample was exceptionally high. Full-time manual focusing (FTM) is always possible in one-shot AF mode."
You really do need to work on getting the ratings from the different reviewers a bit more in line, else the rating system is even more problematic than they by definition already are.
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
You yourself note the same about the Nikon 24-120mm f4:
"Unfortunately the focus ring shows a behaviour which we have seen in other recent Nikon lenses, too: there's a little play, not in the focus ring itself, but the coupling with the actual focus unit. When changing the focus direction, it takes a few millimeters of movement until the focus unit actually follows the focus ring. This can be annoying when trying to nail critical focus, for example in Live View.
In addition, the focus ring is rather thin and the travel path rather short. So, in summary, this lens is not much fun to focus manually."
Besides that, the Canon apparently is a faster focuser too, which also would fall under mechanical quality....
[quote name='ben4345' timestamp='1302591721' post='7553']
I was playing with the Canons 24-105 f4 today along with Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens. I am confused on why the Canon gets 4 stars for mechanical and the Nikon gets 4 and a half.
[/quote]
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302689007' post='7589']
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1302694372' post='7591']
I do see why, it is in no relation to the rating of the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM rating of the same (mechanical quality).
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses...
The Canon is better constructed, yet gets a lower rating.
[/quote]
Fair points... but half a star..?
Drawing a comparison with psychometric testing, this may be raising issues of validity, and of test-retest and inter-rater reliability: does a test measure what it purports to measure? If different people measure the same thing twice, do you get the same result? If the same person measures the same thing twice, on different occasions - using the same measure - do they get the same result?
The resolution, vignetting and distortion results are based on measures, so it's reasonable to expect the reliability and validity criteria to apply.
Build quality seems to be more 'impressionistic'... so the suggested level of consistency and comparison between reviews (and reviewers) may be expecting too much...
The summaries BC quotes do suggest the Canon's build quality is better, rather than the Nikon's, though.
Ian
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302689007' post='7589']
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
Regarding the optical quality, I see it below the 24.105 IS in summary. Yes, it has less barrel distortion at the short end, but I consider the large amount of pincushion distortion at the longer focal lengths to be more annoying in the field. And I don't see the Canon far behind in terms of bokeh quality. Both are not really great in this regard.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Distortion is distortion, pin cushion or barrel. Because there isn't a field rating for the Nikon, why do you even mention what more annoying on the field?
As for bokeh quality, the Canon is, subtle but, noticeably worse than the Nikon.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1302694372' post='7591']
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
[/quote]
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 does have better than $300-600 lenses with out a doubt, but it is not better than the Canon 24-105 f/4.
|
