[thxbb12]

Hi Markus,



If you are interested in testing this oldie but good one, I can send you a Nikon 28-105 for reviewing!

Cheers.

[mst]

Thanks for the offer, but I already own one myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Don't expect a review too soon, though. That one is certainly way down on the priority list.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

That is a shame, it would be very interesting how it fares on a FF DSLR. Would make an awesome hazard lens on a D700 or D3, if it performs any way decently.

[mst]

I didn't say "no", I only said "later". Or do you consider it of higher priority than for example the AF-D 24-85, the AF-S 28-70, 24-120 VR (the old one), the Tamron 28-75 and 24-70VC?



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1333869889' post='17378']

I didn't say "no", I only said "later". Or do you consider it of higher priority than for example the AF-D 24-85, the AF-S 28-70, 24-120 VR (the old one), the Tamron 28-75 and 24-70VC?



-- Markus

[/quote]

Certainly not higher priority than the AF-S 28-70 and Tamron 24-70 VC. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />



I do consider it higher priority than the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (we already know how it performs, tested on Sony and Canon) and the Nikon 24-120 VR old one ( already know that one is not a great performer too).

[Rover]

Might add the AF-S 24-85 to the list, I remember reading Ken Rockwell's 24mm lens comparison and this one fared surprisingly well given the price and positioning.



I had used the non AF-S 24-85 briefly (when I was using Nikon gear, that is) and it wasn't particularly memorable. But that was on DX anyways (over 5 years ago...)



And - hell, we can dream! - there was also a Tamron 24-135 somewhere...

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1333883758' post='17386']

And - hell, we can dream! - there was also a Tamron 24-135 somewhere...

[/quote]

In a review list? Or in general as extended standard zoom? I remember there was a Sigma 24-135mm too, and a Tokina 24-200mm even <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

[thxbb12]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1333884022' post='17387']

In a review list? Or in general as extended standard zoom? I remember there was a Sigma 24-135mm too, and a Tokina 24-200mm even <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

[/quote]



The other ones that I would like to see tested on FF are the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4, Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 (unique f/2.8 range!) and Sigma 24-105 f/2.8-4.



The latter one would be, to me, the best compromise in terms of focal length, aperture, speed and size. If only Nikon would make a version with VR...

[Rover]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1333884022' post='17387']

In a review list? Or in general as extended standard zoom? I remember there was a Sigma 24-135mm too, and a Tokina 24-200mm even <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

[/quote]

The Tamron was reviewed here on Canon APS-C as I can see now. But it looks discontinued so it will hardly merit a retest.

[mst]

I can't promise anything, but at least the older generation super-zooms (28-200, 24-200) are very unlikely to ever be reviewed on FX. Regarding the Tamron 28-105/2.8: that's certainly an attractive lens on paper, but it had a failly mixed reputation on film and early generation DSLRs. One shouldn't exepct wonders with today's high pixel density sensors. There's probably a reason why we haven't seen any other f/2.8 zoom with that range since then...



-- Markus