Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are these good lenses?
#1
Can you guys tell me which of these zooms are good for fullframe? (to be used on a Nikon D700 body)

Obviously, there are not pro-grade lenses and some are all about compromise, especially the ones with a long range.

I just would like to know which ones are good, in their category, and which ones must really be avoided.



Standard zooms:

Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4

Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6

Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6

Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6



Ultra wide zoom:

Tokina 20-35 f/2.8



Long zoom:

Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6



Thank you for your feedback!
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#2
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1319670924' post='12506']

Can you guys tell me which of these zooms are good for fullframe? (to be used on a Nikon D700 body)

Obviously, there are not pro-grade lenses and some are all about compromise, especially the ones with a long range.

I just would like to know which ones are good, in their category, and which ones must really be avoided.



Standard zooms:

Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4

Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6

Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6

Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6



Ultra wide zoom:

Tokina 20-35 f/2.8



Long zoom:

Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6



Thank you for your feedback!

[/quote]



I think reviewers would agree with me that all the listed lenses can be marked as second-rate among lenses. Of course it all depends on one´s personal requirements and judgement but personally I wouldn´t buy any of those in the list - each of them is either a thing of the past or of arguable quality. If I were you, I would always look at lenses already primarily designed for a sensor and not a film frame. There are already good, relatively affordable and newer lenses for full frame on the market (for instance, the new 24-120/f4 is certainly better than the infamous 24-120/3.5-5.6).
#3
Well the 24-120/4 VR still retails for 950 EUR or more, while the older 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR can often be found used for 250 EUR, the older non-VR for even less.



I can't comment on all of the lenses on the list, but I own the 24-85/2.8-4, which is ok, but not stellar. The macro mode is a neat feature, but don't expect wonders from it.



Missing on your list is the AF-D 28-105, which can often be found quite cheap and is certainly well worth the (little) money. I think I paid 150 EUR for mine.



Talking about the tele lenses: I once used the Tokina 80-400 on film, where it already wasn't really stellar. I'd rather look for a 70-300 VR or Tamron 70-300 VC here.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#4
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1319670924' post='12506']

Can you guys tell me which of these zooms are good for fullframe? (to be used on a Nikon D700 body)

Obviously, there are not pro-grade lenses and some are all about compromise, especially the ones with a long range.

I just would like to know which ones are good, in their category, and which ones must really be avoided.



Standard zooms:

Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4

Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6

Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6

Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6



Ultra wide zoom:

Tokina 20-35 f/2.8



Long zoom:

Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6



Thank you for your feedback!

[/quote]

Nikon 24-80mm f2.8-4: respected lens , probably the only lens in your list (besides the Tokina UWA) that is worth a look.

Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6: Not advisable. Not a sharp lens, especially wide open.

Tokina 24-200mm: Quite a weak lens, with so-so resolution, strong colour cast, CA problems etc..

Tamron 28-200mm f3.8-5.6: Back in its time interesting (for film and small prints). Now not very good.



The only 28-200mm worth looking at still is the Nikkor 28-200mm. It was the best of the super zooms of the film era, and will still perform ok-ish on FF digital.



Tokina 20-35mm: A worthwhile (ultra?) wide angle for FF, if the price is right.

Another worthwhile UWA is the Tokina 19-35mm. Light, not the metal log the 20-35mm f2.8 is, but when you stop it down to f8 it is surprisingly good.



Tokina 80-400mm: There have been (more than?) 3 versions of this lens, the current one being the best optically. Still not very impressive, especially at 400mm. A Tamron 70-300mm VC USD is a MUCH better choice, and gives you image stabilization too. the not so great Sigma 120-400mm OS is a better choice still, than the Tokina 80-400mm.
#5
I own the 24-85mm 2.8-4D and use it occasionally on my D700. The long end is soft but can be used for portraits (except for limited DoF requirements). The macro feature between 35-85mm provides 1:2 ratio. For wide angle close-ups at 35mm, very fun to use (at least for my taste). The color reproduction is warmer compared to other lenses I own... By the way, I find the bokeh interestingly very pleasant for such a lens in that zoom range.
#6
Thanks all for your replies.

Well, I just wanted to know if there was some old but great glass I didn't know about.

I'm a Pentax user (K5 with quite a few, actually too many lenses), but I'm about to buy into the Nikon system. However, I'm still debating whether I should go for the D700 or the D7000. FF is rather expensive and I'm not that conviced the glass is really better than APS-C. My main motivation is DOF control although at base ISO I think the D7000 has the edge, especially in terms of DR.

If only Nikon were to finally annouce the successors to the D700 and D300!! Damn.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#7
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1319741793' post='12529']

Thanks all for your replies.

Well, I just wanted to know if there was some old but great glass I didn't know about.

I'm a Pentax user (K5 with quite a few, actually too many lenses), but I'm about to buy into the Nikon system. However, I'm still debating whether I should go for the D700 or the D7000. FF is rather expensive and I'm not that conviced the glass is really better than APS-C. My main motivation is DOF control although at base ISO I think the D7000 has the edge, especially in terms of DR.

If only Nikon were to finally annouce the successors to the D700 and D300!! Damn.

[/quote]

What makes you want to switch from K5 to D7000? From K5 to D700 sort of makes sense...
#8
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1319746388' post='12530']

What makes you want to switch from K5 to D7000? From K5 to D700 sort of makes sense...

[/quote]



The Pentax K5 is truly a great camera, but what's the most impressive is its sensor. I would probably not even consider switching to another brand if Pentax AF was much more reliable. The thing is, I just bought a DA* 50-135 and it just doesn't focus consistently. In LV however, it's razor sharp at all focal lengths even wide open. I sent it back to Pentax Switzerland (which is actually a 3rd party company as Pentax is not present in Switzerland anymore) as its focus shift was too great for the in-camera micro adjustments. I also sent the body back. Now it focuses properly at 50mm, but at 135mm it's off. I can change the micro adjustment so it's fine at 135mm, but then it will be off at 50mm. This lens is supposed to be pro-grade. Furthermore at time it just doesn't even AF in bright light (a thing that happens a lot with the DA* 16-50 as well). The lens is still under warranty and the repair place told me everything is fine with my body and lens. As it stands, this lens is unusable on my body. I have the same issue with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (even worse). I can't get my Pentax FA 35 f/2 to focus accurately either. It all gets worse as the focus shift changes between day light and tungsten. With my DA 55-300 I just can't get it to focus as well as LV, regardless of the micro-adjustments. The only 2 lenses I have that focus really consistently are my DFA 100 f/2.8 macro and Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (surprisingly!).

Now, I don't know if the grass will be much greener in Nikon land, but I just can't see it being as bad.



At first I had obviously considered getting a D700. However, after having thought more about what lens I'd get, it just seems like the offering is more interesting in DX land. Plus, the D700 sensor is getting outdated, especially in terms of DR. I think I'd miss the DR of the K5/D7000. Going FF I'd loose reach, but gain DOF. The high ISO performance of my K5 is good enough so better high ISO it's not a major consideration. I value base ISO (80) IQ much more than the gain I'd have at ISO > 1600. I shoot mostly landscapes, macro, wildlife and portrait (a bit of everything really).



In a nutshell, here is why I'm more keen on the D7000 vs D700:

+ 100% VF vs 95%: I don't think I can go back to < 100% after having used the K5; you get exactly what you see

+ Higher DR at lower ISO

+ Higher IQ at base ISO: I shoot at base ISO a lot

+ More reach for wildlife and sports (thanks to the 1.5x crop factor)

+ 16MP vs 12MP

+ Dual card slots: I once had a card read error while on an assignment; luckily I only lost a dozen shots

+ SD card instead of CF (I have a large collection of SD cards)

+ Silent shutter: this is something I really appreciate about the K5, especially when shooting in quiet environments

+ Size and weight

+ Obviously: price



To me the only real advantage of the D700 is the shallower DOF, thus better DOF control and potential creativity.

Now, it's also a disadvantage when you need reach... The best of both worlds would be to have both bodies of course.



Also, in terms of lenses, I haven't fully decided what I want, but I think I'll start with:

- Nikkor 12-24 f/4 or Tokina 12-24 f/4: I have the Pentax 12-24 f/4 which shares the same optical design as the Tokina: it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used (perhaps I have an exceptional copy); truly impressive

- Nikkor 16-85 as a (slow) walk-around lens or a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4: I have the 17-70 2.8-4.5 on my Pentax and it's sharp even wide-open at 70mm (I know I have a good sample as I tried 2 others before which were clearly not as good)

- Nikkor 70-300 or Tamron 70-300

- Nikkor 35 f/1.8G

- Nikkor 50 f/1.8G (or the 1.4G, not sure yet)

- Tamron 90 macro or Tokina 100 macro



In the future, I'll probably also get a fast standard zoom (one of the 17-50 f/2.8 incarnations) and a medium portrait zoom (Tokina 50-135, Sigma 50-150 or Nikkor 70-200 although the latter is expensive).



If you look at the list of lenses above and you want to get fullframe equivalents, the task is not that easy. In the UWA department, I think the DX selection is definitely better optically overall and also cheaper, smaller and lighter. When you consider long lenses, the story is the same. To me, fullframe makes a lot of sense for portraiture (DOF control) and high ISO such as concerts, but for the rest... I think DX is just better overall.



Right now I still have my K5 and quite a few lenses (Sigma 17-70, Pentax DA 12-24, DA 15 limited, DA 55-300, FA 50 f/1.4, DFA 100 macro). I don't think the D7000 is as nicely built and as featured as the K5 (especially in terms of ergonomics). I'm waiting for Nikon to release a high-end APS-C camera to replace the D300S, but it seems it won't happen any time soon. The same is true regarding the D800. If the D800 doesn't feature too many pixels, a DR at least equal to the K5's, a 100% VF, dual card slot, and is not too big, then I may be tempted by going FF...
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#9
Re: the original list of lenses, I only have experience with Nikkor 24-85 (though not on FF which wasn't available at the time - a decent lens on DX, though the screw driven AF was annoying). I tried a Tokina 80-400 and it isn't very good. It confounds me that people sometimes upgrade (or consider upgrading) to FF and expect to make due with average lenses while, I think, lenses are the first and (pretty much) foremost way to go for good IQ (unless one is using some ancient sensor camera of course).



Oh, and re: the Tokina 24-200 - a pal of mine had it (in Canon mount) and it didn't work on digital (hangs up camera) over some focal length. In any case it's a very old lens so cannot be recommended for modern FF digital.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)