 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2005Suggestion mid range high quality lens
I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since this is going on a digital camera) high quality zoom and am looking for suggestions. I don't mind paying pro lens prices, if it's worth it. Need something that will produce excellent color and little distortion. (product shots for web) Nikon camera. Thanks T.O. >I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since this >is going on a digital camera) high quality zoom and am looking for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks > T.O. Either the 24-120 or the 28-105 would fit your definition. Jim >>I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since this >>is going on a digital camera) high quality zoom and am looking for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >Either the 24-120 or the 28-105 would fit your definition. No, neither of these fits the OP's definition. The 24-120mm suffers from severe distortion, and the 28-105mm suffers from noticeable vignetting at the 28mm end, which in any case isn't wide enough. The OP clearly stated a need for 24mm. I would recommend the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor, available used at surprisingly reasonable prices. The 20-35mm f/2.8 was discontinued in favour of the 17-35mm, but it remains a remarkable optic, one of the best wide angle zoom lenses ever made. It delivers resolution and contrast to match any of the f/2.8 fixed focal length Nikkors in the 20-35mm range, except the 28mm f/2.8 AF-D (only the AF-D 28mm is worth considering) and its distortion is negligible. On a DSLR it is a useful (equivalent) 30-52.5mm zoom. It is advisable to try before you buy, because a small proportion of these lenses suffered from chromatic aberration that gave visible colour fringing. I owned two examples, neither of which had this problem, but it is best to check. If buying by mail order, or from eBay, ensure the seller has a good returns policy. The 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S Nikkor may also be worth considering. I haven't had the opportunity to test one, but have heard very good reports. The focal length range is exceptionally useful, being equivalent to 25.5-82.5mm on a 35mm film camera. It is also very good value for money. Once again, try before you buy or buy from a seller with a good returns policy. Thanks. I have the 17-35 f2.8. Awesome lens. I was trying find something that would have just a bit more reach--when needed--so I could back off a bit. Any comments on the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0? Anyone notice any distortion at the wider end. I'm shooting fabric and sometimes the fabric has lines, squares, rectangles, etc. It wouldn't look good to have a round square! I wouldn't be opposed to a third party lens either. Thanks all. T.O. Galloway >>>I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since >>>this [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > value for money. Once again, try before you buy or buy from a seller > with a good returns policy. >Thanks. You're welcome. >I have the 17-35 f2.8. Awesome lens. I was trying find something >that would have just a bit more reach--when needed--so I could back off a >bit. OK, understood. >Any comments on the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0? Anyone notice any distortion at >the wider end. It's a horrible lens. Distortion is severe - barrel at the wide end, pincushion at the tele end. Unsharp unless well stopped down. There's a later version, the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S which has better optics and Silent Wave Motor focusing. The distortion is significantly less but it is still there. >I'm shooting fabric and sometimes the fabric has lines, squares, rectangles, >etc. It wouldn't look good to have a round square! > >I wouldn't be opposed to a third party lens either. You are unlikely to find a better lens in a third party brand. Maybe you could follow Matt Clara's suggestion, and buy fixed focal length Nikkors? The 24mm f/2.8 (all versions) and the 28mm f/2.8 AF-D (only the D version) are optically excellent in every way. The 35mm f/2 has low distortion, as do both the 50mm AF lenses (f/1.4, f/1.8) which are also extremely sharp. In zooms, the 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S is optically excellent, and you could supplement this with a 24mm fixed focal length lens. But I come back to my earlier suggestion of the 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S Nikkor. You might like to read these reviews, from Thom Hogan and Bjørn Rørslett, both of whom are respected reviewers of Nikon gear: http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm#autofocus http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G Both reviews mention distortion. Only you will know how much of this is acceptable for your work, but the 17-55mm f/2.8G distorts far less than both 24-85mm versions - and both 24-120mm versions too. >I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since this >is going on a digital camera) high quality zoom and am looking for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks > T.O. 17-35mm f2.8 afs. But really, for product shots, I'd use fixed focal lengths, and the old Nikon Ai-S lenses go for a song anymore. The 24mm f2.8 is an excellent lens, and the 28mm f2.8 is even better (sharper and more well corrected).  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com Yes Matt but for his application he could do nicely with the 18-35 3.5-4.5 for a ton less $$$. > Yes Matt but for his application he could do nicely with the 18-35 > 3.5-4.5 for a ton less $$$. The 18-35 is not as well corrected as the 17-35mm, but you're right, for the web it's overkill. Still, he said he wanted a pro lens... SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >Yes Matt but for his application he could do nicely with the 18-35 >3.5-4.5 for a ton less $$$. The OP specifically mentioned a need for low distortion. This lens has horrible distortion, plus it isn't especially sharp. Anyone considering purchasing the 18-35mm Nikkor should also consider the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which has better sharpness and much lower distortion and costs a fraction of the price of the Nikkor. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.