FX Normal Zooms - What's the Deal?

[Tee]

Mark, FWIW, I had the Tamron 28-75 and it was a definite improvement from the kit lenses I was using. For someone with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. But, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I can't agree, the 24-70 is not "too" expensive. My only complaint is its heavy, buy still quite the bargain for its performance and what all it does.

 

[Markw]

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.

I won't. They're trying to do two things. They're trying to dip into the pool of medium format buyers who stupidly do so simply for the MP, and offer landscape, studio, product, and wildlife (cropability, feather/hair resolution, etc) photographers a camera specifically made for them. They're even supposed to be announcing a model without the Anti-Aliasing filter to grab the extra detail lost by the filter in the first place. This will be great for all of the genres listed. The 36MP will also be fantastic for videographers needing the cropability seen in the 16MP D4. I'm sure the D800 will have the 2.7x crop, and will hopefully still have the 1:1 pixel reproduction of the D4. That will give a 5.4x+ crop for wildlife and sports videographers, and the cropability of the photos will be comparable. I'm hoping it will offer a CX mode, like the other FX cameras offer a DX mode.

Mark

 

[nickzou]

Why not get the older version of the 24-70 2.8? Apparently, the optics are on par with the new one just without VR. It it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Why not get the older version of the 24-70 2.8? Apparently, the optics are on par with the new one just without VR. It it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

The new one doesn't have VR either, unless they came out with one since my purchase. I agree, I don't need VR at those focal lengths either.

 

[Markw]

Mark, FWIW, I had the Tamron 28-75 and it was a definite improvement from the kit lenses I was using. For someone with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. But, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

I don't have a D90. I have a D300s. I don't use a kit lens. See my signature. Thank you.

I can't agree, the 24-70 is not "too" expensive. My only complaint is its heavy, buy still quite the bargain for its performance and what all it does.

I didn't mean it was too expensive in general. I meant it was too expensive for me to purchase alongside the D800, for the time being. And my 18-50/2.8 is simply not up to par.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Why not get the older version of the 24-70 2.8? Apparently, the optics are on par with the new one just without VR. It it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

I've searched a bunch on the sigmas. The former version was far less sharp and has many other shortcomings to the newer model.

If you're talking about the Nikon versions, their 24-70 don't have VR..

Why not get the older version of the 24-70 2.8? Apparently, the optics are on par with the new one just without VR. It it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

The new one doesn't have VR either, unless they came out with one since my purchase. I agree, I don't need VR at those focal lengths either.

+1

Mark

 

[nickzou]

Why not get the older version of the 24-70 2.8? Apparently, the optics are on par with the new one just without VR. It it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

The new one doesn't have VR either, unless they came out with one since my purchase. I agree, I don't need VR at those focal lengths either.

Oh... so it doesn't. I guess I just assumed all the Trinity had VR. Oops.

 

[Tee]

Mark, FWIW, I had the Tamron 28-75 and it was a definite improvement from the kit lenses I was using. For someone with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. But, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

I don't have a D90. I have a D300s. I don't use a kit lens. See my signature. Thank you.

Yes. I know you don't have a D90. I was generalizing to the average hobby photographer. Let's try this again:

For someone(i.e., a hobbyiest) with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. BUT, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

Any clearer? Thank you.

 

[Markw]

Mark, FWIW, I had the Tamron 28-75 and it was a definite improvement from the kit lenses I was using. For someone with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. But, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

I don't have a D90. I have a D300s. I don't use a kit lens. See my signature. Thank you.

Yes. I know you don't have a D90. I was generalizing to the average hobby photographer. Let's try this again:

For someone(i.e., a hobbyiest) with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. BUT, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

Any clearer? Thank you.

Ahhh. I see what you mean. I misinterpreted it. Sorry about that. :blushing:

Mark

 

[mjhoward]

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.

I'm hoping it will offer a CX mode, like the other FX cameras offer a DX mode.

I doubt it. I believe the main reason the FX bodies offer DX mode is because a DX lens shares the same mount as FX lenses and can therefore be used on the FX body. CX lenses have their own CX Mount and can't be used on FX or DX bodies, hence the reason for my doubt. It's not any different than cropping your photos down by a factor of 2.7 anyway unless you were wanting the 'CX mode' for video.

 

[djacobox372]

Ive owned both the sigma and tamron, id choose the tamron.

 

[Markw]

Yeah. CX for video, like the D4 does.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Ive owned both the sigma and tamron, id choose the tamron.

The non-macro version of the Sigma? Why would you recommend the Tamron?

Mark

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Mark, FWIW, I had the Tamron 28-75 and it was a definite improvement from the kit lenses I was using. For someone with a D90 looking for a little bit extra without breaking the bank, I'd say go for it. But, it looks like you're going for the whole enchilada in which case, you need to sell some extra plasma or start working a corner to fund your needs.

I don't have a D90. I have a D300s. I don't use a kit lens. See my signature. Thank you.

I can't agree, the 24-70 is not "too" expensive. My only complaint is its heavy, buy still quite the bargain for its performance and what all it does.

I didn't mean it was too expensive in general. I meant it was too expensive for me to purchase alongside the D800, for the time being. And my 18-50/2.8 is simply not up to par.

Mark

18-50 is super nice but FYI since I went full frame my 24-70 lives on the longer side and hardly ever sees the 24 side. Less distortion and the depth of field is..well you know =)