FX Normal Zooms - What's the Deal?

Markw

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
4,057
Reaction score
230
Location
Baltimore
Website
www.outsidetherainbow.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
So, after seeing the D4, and its amazing features, I'm about 80% certain I'll be picking up a D800 when Nikon decides to announce it. So, I'm going to need a half decent, fast, normal zoom lens. There's no question that the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor is completely out of the question. It's simply too expensive. I understand that this lens would be the best lens to have for the job, especially on the rumored 36MP sensor. But, sadly, it's simply not an option.

Anywho, I was naturally looking at the Sigma counterpart; the 24-70mm IF EX DG HSM. I notice this is half the price, and the MTF charts look fairly good to me. I look at the Tamron counterpart, the 28-75mm F/2.8, and it's only <$500! What's the deal with that?! Any comparisons someplace out there you could point me to?

Now, this being said, I don't plan on jumping on the Tamron because of the price. I wouldn't mind paying for the better lens, but I simply can't afford the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor.

Anywho, does anyone have any personal experience with the Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM model? If so, what's your experience, and what do you think of it as a substitute for the 24-70 Nikkor, at least for a while? I don't really like the fact that the front element moves all about when you zoom, but what can you do, right?

The other option is to use the Nikkor 17-55/2.8, but that would completely defeat the purpose of getting an FX camera, I think. :er:

Mark
 
You can afford a rumoured camera that just might be in the neighborhood of $4000 but not a $1700 top of the line existing and proven lens?Nikon AF-S Zoom NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED at Memory Express

You might also look at the older, but just as good, 28-70 f/2.8. I don't know squat about the sigma or the tamron equivalents so I can't comment on those. But what I have noticed is that there are a lot of threads on various forums complaining about the build quality and the sample variances with lenses from third party suppliers. Not so much with Nikkor lenses. Something else that comes to mind is that MTF charts don't tell anywhere near the whole story about lenses. Unless you get absolutely the worst of the worst then slight variations in MTF charts don't amount to anything once the ink hits the paper.

A few members on here are not real excited about the focal length of these normal zooms. An argument can be made for a wide zoom, a tele zoom and a really good and fast prime for the middle. A 16 or 17 to 35, a 50 and a 70-200 would be a nice set. Or a nice set of primes: 20 or 24, 50, 85, 105 (or 135) and 200. Good wide primes are a bit rare. Zeiss, among a few others, make nice ones.
 
You're talking about buying a camera rumored to be priced at $4000, and a lens is too expensive?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
 
I'd comment on this, but I'm on the phone with my mechanic at the moment.

He's having troubles putting the 1.9l 4-cyl engine in my Ferrari.
 
You can afford a rumoured camera that just might be in the neighborhood of $4000 but not a $1700 top of the line existing and proven lens?Nikon AF-S Zoom NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED at Memory Express

You might also look at the older, but just as good, 28-70 f/2.8. I don't know squat about the sigma or the tamron equivalents so I can't comment on those. But what I have noticed is that there are a lot of threads on various forums complaining about the build quality and the sample variances with lenses from third party suppliers. Not so much with Nikkor lenses. Something else that comes to mind is that MTF charts don't tell anywhere near the whole story about lenses. Unless you get absolutely the worst of the worst then slight variations in MTF charts don't amount to anything once the ink hits the paper.

A few members on here are not real excited about the focal length of these normal zooms. An argument can be made for a wide zoom, a tele zoom and a really good and fast prime for the middle. A 16 or 17 to 35, a 50 and a 70-200 would be a nice set. Or a nice set of primes: 20 or 24, 50, 85, 105 (or 135) and 200. Good wide primes are a bit rare. Zeiss, among a few others, make nice ones.

That's a good idea about the wide and tele zoom with a fast prime for the middle. I'll consider it. Thanks alot.

I'll look into it. Thanks.

You're talking about buying a camera rumored to be priced at $4000, and a lens is too expensive?
Well, yeah. The lens + Camera is too expensive for my funding right now. But, if I don't scoop up the camera at the price it is announced at, the chances are fairly short that I could get it for that price for some months to come.

I'd comment on this, but I'm on the phone with my mechanic at the moment.

He's having troubles putting the 1.9l 4-cyl engine in my Ferrari.
How completely unnecessary. :mrgreen:

Thanks everyone!
Mark
 
Well, I would almost guarantee that the D400 will not have 36mp... come on now! Nikon does not have to play the mp game, but they did bump them up a bit this past year and now with the D4. I would think that the D400 will be in check with the mp count of the D7000 and the D4.

Anyway, keep your D300s and spend your money on better glass. This is what I have done. I started out digitally with the D90 as it looks like you did. Now I have the D3 as my main body. It will not be until next year until I step up to a D3s as my main and keep my D3 as my 2nd body.

Take your time. The technology in the slightly older cameras is still excellent!
 
I'd comment on this, but I'm on the phone with my mechanic at the moment.

He's having troubles putting the 1.9l 4-cyl engine in my Ferrari.

I hereby bequeath upon you the title of Snark Master, 2nd Class.
 
I didn't say I would buy the D400. I said I was going to pick up the D800. That's why I'm looking for better glass. And I want to move to the D800 because I've been integrating video into my workflow a TON lately, and I really need much better low-light performance (before you say "Get a D3 or D700!, if I can get video + better noise in one package, I'd like that better than having a DX and FX lineup). The D4 gives you the option of 2.7x crop, or 1:1 pixel reproduction in video. If the D800 does this as well (2.7x), and the 1:1 reproduction ratio, it will give something like a 5.4x crop factor option in video. This is absolutely incredible for wildlife or macro video. Now, I don't know if they will or not, and I honestly doubt that they will, but if they do, it will be all the better for me. I could use the rumored features of the D800 more immediately than needing top quality glass. Now, don't get me wrong, I have every intention of investing pretty heavily in glass in the future, but I think the upgrade of my body is more immediately needed if it's anywhere near the D4 for video, and the D700 for ISO.

Mark
 
Why not just get the D700 and the Top of the line glass that goes with it?!? You're going to get far better images with that combination than the newest body (which will depreciate in value anyway) with some s#it glass in front of it.
 
Why not just get the D700 and the Top of the line glass that goes with it?!? You're going to get far better images with that combination than the newest body (which will depreciate in value anyway) with some s#it glass in front of it.

I need the functions that the rumored D800 specs offer. Why not get the waitlisted top-of-the-line camera, wait* 6 months, and pick up the readily-available top-of-the-line glass?

Mark

EDIT: * - Save for 6 months
 
Last edited:
Well, at least you have a plan!

Good luck!
 
Why not just get the D700 and the Top of the line glass that goes with it?!? You're going to get far better images with that combination than the newest body (which will depreciate in value anyway) with some s#it glass in front of it.

I need the functions that the rumored D800 specs offer. Why not get the waitlisted top-of-the-line camera, wait* 6 months, and pick up the readily-available top-of-the-line glass?

Mark

EDIT: * - Save for 6 months

Because the glass is available now and the body likely wont be out for the 6 months (or longer) that you need for saving?
 
That will work out well then. By time the camera gets to me, I'll have the money to purchase the lens to go along with it. But, if I tried to order the camera six months from now, it could very well take another 6 months from then to receive it.

Mark
 
I too am a little skeptical of the 36MP thing. Just doesn't seem like Nikon's thing. I'll be surprised if it's true.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top