If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses. ;-) . . . continued . . . and wouldn't be even if I someday got a FF DSLR) because I'm not obcessed with landscape photography, I'd keep my DX DSLR which already pretty much covers the same focal length range, and who wants to worry about a lens with a gigantic bulbous nose exposed to the elements and which can't even be protected with a lens filter? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses. ;-) . . . continued . . . and wouldn't be even if I someday got a FF DSLR) because I'm not obcessed with landscape photography, I'd keep my DX DSLR which already pretty much covers the same focal length range, and who wants to worry about a lens with a gigantic bulbous nose exposed to the elements and which can't even be protected with a lens filter? I would get it if budget weren't an issue but I probably would leave it at home for most situations because of the size. Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24: 14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better 18mm f/2.8 -same issues 20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light 24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small (the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better image quality) I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which I use all the time. Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg (about the same size as the Sigma 12-24) -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:06:24 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24: 14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better 18mm f/2.8 -same issues 20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light 24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small (the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better image quality) I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which I use all the time. Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg (about the same size as the Sigma 12-24) My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to resist flare despite not being an N lens. I'm not surprised that you refer to the 24mm AI as an "Ai junker that I don't really use" based on what this guy says about it (his reply title is "Worst lens I have" and while he doesn't identify it as an AI lens, he has a lot of old Nikkors) and he also agrees with your opinion of the 20mm f/2.8 : I have a 24 f/2.8 Nikkor and have never been satisfied with the image quality on film. It's especially funky in the corners but does not seem particularly good even in the center. I have never used it on my D300 because it's not all that wide on a crop sensor and I've been happy with my 16-85. All I really do with it is reverse it on a bellows for high- magnification macros, but I haven't tried this on digital. I don't know what I'd pick for a wide prime. Either a 35 f/2 or a 20 f/2.8, I guess. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30188026 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
ASAAR wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24: 14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better 18mm f/2.8 -same issues 20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light 24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small (the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better image quality) I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which I use all the time. Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg (about the same size as the Sigma 12-24) My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to resist flare Hmm, I had not heard that. despite not being an N lens. What is an N lens? I'm not surprised that you refer to the 24mm AI as an "Ai junker Just that mine is a very beat up old copy probably from a news agency. I bid low on ebay and that's the reason I won :-) I haven't really assessed it much. that I don't really use" based on what this guy says about it (his reply title is "Worst lens I have" and while he doesn't identify it as an AI lens, he has a lot of old Nikkors) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30188026 This guy thinks it's pretty good on film: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html I have a 28mm f/2 Ai that I grab instead. Or the 20mm. Or if I have the 12-24 mounted, I sometimes use 24mm, though rarely. What I would like is a fixed length /really sharp/ wide angle like perhaps the Sigma 14mm f/2.8. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:55:55 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to resist flare Hmm, I had not heard that. That the 17-35mm has been discontinued? I read that in several DPR forum messages, and then saw this about a week later : The 17-35mm has been discontinued, but it is possible that Nikon thinks that the 14-24 plus 24-70 fill that gap. They would be wrong if they think that. http://bythom.com/ In his Rational Lens Choices article Thom lists the best lenses at different focal lengths. Here's the condensed version, focusing on how the 17-35mm compares : 17mm : Best is the 14-24 with the 17-35 next if filters are needed. 18mm : The 17-35 is tied with several others at the top for DX. For use with FX sensors, the 14-24mm is the top choice. 20mm : 20mm f/2.8 & 14-24, followed by the 17-35 24mm : 12-24 & 24-24 tied. The 24mm f/2.8 isn't bad for film but it's not as good for digital use. The 17-35 "does a very respectable job at this focal length (and is almost free of distortion at 24mm). 28mm : The 17-35 is a respectable performer, but not quite at the same level as the 28-70mm f/2.8D or the 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S. 35mm : The 24-70, 28-70 and 35-70 closely followed by the 17-35. My preference would be the 17-35mm, followed later by the 24-70mm. Although the 14-24 is better, it's large enough that I'd probably try to avoid using it. And when I didn't, I'd feel guilty if I didn't bring along a good tripod as well, increasing the load. despite not being an N lens. What is an N lens? Identified by a large "N" on the lens barrel, its Exclusive Nano Crystal Coat further reduces ghosting and flare for even greater image clarity. http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...2F2.8G-ED.html My guess is that the 17-35mm has less trouble resisting flare because it isn't penalized by the 14-24's large, bulbous nose. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:41:02 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
Then there is the stuff I lust after, and will get some day so I can realize the full potential of my D300. Soft&tenderduck assistants don't come cheap! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
ASAAR wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to resist flare Hmm, I had not heard that. That the 17-35mm has been discontinued? That it was better able to resist flare than the 14-24. What is an N lens? Identified by a large "N" on the lens barrel Nano Crystal Ah, I never noticed the 'N'. My guess is that the 17-35mm has less trouble resisting flare because it isn't penalized by the 14-24's large, bulbous nose. I can believe that! -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Help with buying decision.
On 21 Dec 2008 07:20:31 GMT, Ray Fischer, whiner that he is,
sophomorically wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: Spare us the bull****. Sure thing, and it's easy enough. Heed the invisible note at the bottom of all of my replies. It only requires that you don't pollute the newsgroup with your replies. Take your own advice. No need to, since I have a thick enough skin that I don't need to ask you to "Spare us the bull****". But if *you* do, thousands will cheer and there will be dancing in the streets! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Decision of Camera | Ockham's Razor | Digital Photography | 2 | September 16th 06 07:46 PM |
Decision: Canon A95 or S1 at $235 | Joe Esposito | Digital Photography | 0 | May 3rd 05 02:01 AM |
PLEASE HELP WITH BUYING DECISION TODAY!! | Jack Dotson | Digital Photography | 5 | February 13th 05 09:43 PM |
Need help with decision | DDDD | Digital Photography | 15 | November 1st 04 10:00 AM |
Decision time... | Paul Blarmy | Digital Photography | 6 | July 9th 04 06:16 AM |