Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
"Trevor" wrote:

When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will
simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made
to
match as well, then why not indeed!


FWIW, although it isn't a superzoom, the new Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just as
good, across the whole frame, as the very best primes in that range.
(Really: in insane pixel-peeping tests, I can't tell it from the 24TSE II,
even when the TSE isn't shifted.)

Good to hear after the original 24-70 f2.8 wasn't a favourite of many. There
would still be times you'd probably use a 50mm f1.4 (or perhaps the f1.2 :-)
instead though.


This has me being a very happy camper. Carrying and swapping even three
primes is a pain and it's real nice to be able to get the framing exactly
right in camera.

Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.


Why, a good fixed 16mm would probably be enough to complement a 24-70 AFAIC.
24-40 overlap seems unnecessary except for those with one body and an
aversion to changing lenses too often.



(more complex is irrelevent if the
quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!)


The 24-70/2.8 II is pricey and heavy. But a multiple prime kit runs up the
money and weight surprisingly quickly. Of course, you have to heft that
whole weight every time.


Right, there is a difference between the size/weight of what's on the end of
your camera, and what's in your bag. But there are always so many trade offs
to be made that everyone has to decide what's best for their own purposes
and budget.

Trevor.

Rich wrote:
David Taylor wrote in
:

You're thinking an "L" version? I suspect a Pro would have little
need for such a zoom, preferring fixed lenses and multiple cameras
(with an assistant to carry same...).

They only choose fixed lenses because of speed and quality.

And size and weight and price and aperture size. Look up the
parameters of a 200-500mm f/2.8 some day.

If the speed
wasn't as important today, and if they could get the same quality out of
a long zoom, why wouldn't they use it?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

And they'd still wouldn't want to carry or pay for a 200-500 f/2.8.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:48:54 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "Trevor" wrote:
:
: When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will
: simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made to
: match as well, then why not indeed!
:
:
: FWIW, although it isn't a superzoom, the new Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just as
: good, across the whole frame, as the very best primes in that range.
: (Really: in insane pixel-peeping tests, I can't tell it from the 24TSE II,
: even when the TSE isn't shifted.)
:
: This has me being a very happy camper. Carrying and swapping even three
: primes is a pain and it's real nice to be able to get the framing exactly
: right in camera.
:
: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
: 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.
:
:
: (more complex is irrelevent if the
: quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!)
:
:
: The 24-70/2.8 II is pricey and heavy. But a multiple prime kit runs up the
: money and weight surprisingly quickly. Of course, you have to heft that
: whole weight every time.

Let's face it, David: lenses are getting bigger and heavier across the board.
I remember how liberated we all felt when light, small 35mm cameras replaced
heavy press and roll-film cameras. But now we've pretty much reverted to
Square One.

Bob

David Taylor wrote:
On 03/11/2012 00:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
There is already one. It's not doing the 18-27mm part, though
--- which doesn't matter, since it's a full frame lens. Came out
2004 ...
[]
-Wolfgang

Yes, I've handled one of those on a D800 - a very weighty beast!

How did you get an 'L' version (i.e. a Canon lens) on that Nikon?

-Wolfgang

David J. Littleboy wrote:

Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.

That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and
Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and
Canon the better long lenses. :-)

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.

That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and
Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and
Canon the better long lenses. :-)


That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:38:30 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
:
: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
: 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.
:
: That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and
: Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and
: Canon the better long lenses. :-)
:
:
: That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII.

Last night I attended a lecture by Gregory Heisler, one of Canon's "Explorers
of Light". He was a very entertaining speaker and held us spellbound for more
than two hours. He had so many good things to say about the 24mm TS that this
morning I revised my wish list at work to put it first, ahead of the 24-70mm
f/2.8L II. (Don't laugh. The top item on last year's work wish list was the
70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and it's in my equipment backpack eight feet from where
I'm sitting.) ;^)

Bob

On 11/13/2012 3:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: David J. Littleboy
wrote:

Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good
as the
24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.


Interestingly I have a Canon 10-22/4 for their crop frame
cameras and it is an exceedingly fine lens. Truly remarkably
low lateral chromatic aberration.

Doug McDonald

On 11/13/2012 9:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:38:30 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
:
: Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
: 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.
:
: That would be a breach of the agreement between Nikon and
: Canon, wherein Nikon makes the superior wide angle lenses and
: Canon the better long lenses. :-)
:
:
: That agreement became history with the 17TSE and 24TSEII.

Last night I attended a lecture by Gregory Heisler, one of Canon's "Explorers
of Light". He was a very entertaining speaker and held us spellbound for more
than two hours. He had so many good things to say about the 24mm TS that this
morning I revised my wish list at work to put it first, ahead of the 24-70mm
f/2.8L II. (Don't laugh. The top item on last year's work wish list was the
70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and it's in my equipment backpack eight feet from where
I'm sitting.) ;^)

Bob


Sunday I found two of my old lenses. The Nikkor 20mm f.4 and my old
Nikkor 24mm f2.8. Both are pre Ai lenses that I converted to Ai. Both
had been sitting in a box for over twenty years. (I had forgotten I had
them.) This weekend they will be officially unretired. It's been so
long that finding them was like getting a new toy. I hope they have no
resentment about their long period of neglect.

--
Peter

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 11/13/2012 3:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: David J. Littleboy
wrote:
Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as
the 24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.


Interestingly I have a Canon 10-22/4 for their crop frame
cameras and it is an exceedingly fine lens. Truly remarkably
low lateral chromatic aberration.

You mean the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 EFS? Pretty good for a non pro lens. But
obviously not a match for the 24-70f2.8 II, or with FF camera's.

Trevor.