 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Nikkor AF or DX Lenses for best results on a Nikon D50?
Want to get a 200mm telephoto lense for my new D50? Any recommendations? AF or DX? Thanks AJ > Want to get a 200mm telephoto lense for my new D50? Any > recommendations? AF or DX? Thanks AJ "DX" means that the lens will not work on a full-frame film camera, only a digital SLR. "AF" just means autofocus, which all DX lenses are anyway. In other words, the difference doesn't make a difference with a D50. The new 200mm f/2 VR is a very nice lens -- but that's probably a bit more money than you had in mind. :) If you're looking for a zoom, your choices from Nikon's current lineup would include the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which is also very expensive and is absolutely enormous, so we can probably rule that one out; the 80-200mm f/2.8, which may still be too expensive; the 28-200, which I'd stay away from; and the new 55-200 f/4-5.6 DX, about which I know almost nothing, but which was made to "go" with the D50. So I think that last one is worth a look. You might also check out one of the 70-300mm zooms.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Thanks for the info. The Camera store salesman told me there are certain Nikkor brand lenses that work better with Digital SLRs. I'm using my old 35-80mm AF Nikkor that came with my previous film camera Nikon F60. I must say, that my digital shots "seem" on par or better than with the 18-55mm DX kit lens that came with the camera. Interesting that you can use an old film lens on new dslr but not vice versa. Oh well, I love my D50 and I'm happy that my old Vivitar 273 Thyristor Flash works well with it. One happy camper. Regards. AJ >> Want to get a 200mm telephoto lense for my new D50? Any >> recommendations? AF or DX? Thanks AJ [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >You might also check out one of the 70-300mm zooms. > Thanks for the info. The Camera store salesman told me there are > certain Nikkor brand lenses that work better with Digital SLRs. It's not unlikely that he is trying to sell you whatever he gets the best margin (if he's the owner) or commission (if not) on. Or, that he just doesn't really know what he's talking about. One big advantage of posting questions here is that if, for example, I'm wrong about something that I tell you, someone else will come along shortly and correct me. :) The DX lenses are made for the digital SLRs but that doesn't mean that they work "better" with them than a non-DX lens; it just means that they work *only* with the digital SLRs. They can be made less expensive that way without necessarily sacrificing quality. You should choose the best lens that fits within your budget, regardless of whether it is a "DX" lens or not. The only reason it would matter is if you wanted to use the lens on your old film camera, in which case you cannot get a "DX" lens. > I'm using my old 35-80mm AF Nikkor that came with my previous film > camera Nikon F60. I must say, that my digital shots "seem" on par or > better than with the 18-55mm DX kit lens that came with the camera. I'm not personally familiar with the 18-55 lens; however, it was designed around a price point rather than for quality, so it is entirely possible that your older lens really is at least as good. > Interesting that you can use an old film lens on new dslr but not > vice versa. The reason is this: the digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame. The "DX" lenses project a smaller image than the "film" lenses; it will not cover the full film frame, so you can't use those lenses on a film camera. On a digital, the "film" lenses, with their larger image, simply won't use the edges; so, the lenses can be used. > Oh well, I love my D50 We haven't heard from many (or any?) people who have one of these yet, so your observations would certainly be welcome. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >The DX lenses are made for the digital SLRs but that doesn't mean that >they work "better" with them than a non-DX lens; it just means that they >work *only* with the digital SLRs. They can be made less expensive that >way without necessarily sacrificing quality. I haven't looked into this myself but when the tech-rep from Nikon visited he told us that the DX lenses performed much better at focal lengths of 35mm or lower than film lenses. Basically what he told us was that images taken with wide angle film lenses would be a lot less sharp than images taken with DX wide angle lenses. Anyone have any hard info on this? > I haven't looked into this myself but when the tech-rep from Nikon > visited he told us that the DX lenses performed much better at focal > lengths of 35mm or lower than film lenses. Basically what he told us > was that images taken with wide angle film lenses would be a lot less > sharp than images taken with DX wide angle lenses. Anyone have any > hard info on this? Sounds like total crap to me. He may have been talking about telecentric design, which does provide an advantage, but doesn't mean that a DX lens will be better than a non-DX lens by virtue of being a DX lens. Also, telecentric design is of course not limited to DX lenses, though that's where we'll tend to see it since it didn't matter so much with film. I promise you that the 17-35mm f/2.8 is better and sharper than the 18-70mm DX kit lens. Or, probably a better comparison, the 17-35 is considered better than the 17-55 DX. (I have not myself used the 17-55, so I rely on the reports of others. I have both the 17-35 and the 18-70.) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I promise you that the 17-35mm f/2.8 is better and sharper than the > 18-70mm DX kit lens. Or, probably a better comparison, the 17-35 is > considered better than the 17-55 DX. Under what conditions? Seriously, the 18-70 has some faults but at over about 22mm, it outresolves the sensor on my D70 even when fully wide. (detail is clearly resolved to individual pixel level - an example is here: http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg ). So if the 17-55 is sharper, then I have no tools to see the proof of this. With only 50% more linear resolution, I don't think even a D2x would help that much. Is the 17-35 2.8 sharper at the 17-22mm end? > Seriously, the 18-70 has some faults but at over about 22mm, it > outresolves the sensor on my D70 even when fully wide. (detail is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more linear resolution, I don't think even a D2x would help that much. > Is the 17-35 2.8 sharper at the 17-22mm end? The 17-35 is visibly better than the 18-70, on a D2x. I don't think I'm qualified to do a "real" lens test of any significance. Note that this is not to say the 18-70 is in any way bad; it's actually quite good. I'm also not sure that I could reliably distinguish "sharpness" from the other positive quality differences in uncontrolled "testing" consisting of looking at the pictures -- contrast, for example, tends to affect one's perception of sharpness. I haven't used the 18-70 in months; the 17-35 replaced it as my "default" zoom. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Seriously, the 18-70 has some faults but at over about 22mm, it >>outresolves the sensor on my D70 even when fully wide. (detail is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > consisting of looking at the pictures -- contrast, for example, tends > to affect one's perception of sharpness. Hmmm, yes, but with a lens that isn't sharp, contrast in detail is lost, and with the sample I posted a link to, especially when you look at the print scan, any improvement is beyond any expectation I have from 6mp. I'm not saying that a 17-35 won't be sharper, just that you won't see it on a D70, and I'd be surprised if you could see it on a D2x either. That said, it does not retain that full sharpness below about 22mm, especially at the edges (it's not so bad either - but I don't have anything to compare it with), and the lens vignettes noticeably open wide. I am interested to know how much better the 17-35 could be. I suspect the differences are going to be mainly in less distortion and less vignetting, and not in sharpness, especially centre frame and even fully wide open. > I haven't used the 18-70 in months; the 17-35 replaced it as my "default" > zoom. > Hmmm, yes, but with a lens that isn't sharp, contrast in detail is lost, > and with the sample I posted a link to, especially when you look at the > print scan, any improvement is beyond any expectation I have from 6mp. Megapixels aren't everything. > I'm not saying that a 17-35 won't be sharper, just that you won't see it > on a D70, and I'd be surprised if you could see it on a D2x either. So I tried it out. http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/lenstest/ That's a very quick page, and it's large; you'll probably need to scroll it horizontally to see the side-by-side images. I've got 100% crops from both lenses of the same subject under the same lighting with the same camera at 24mm, at several apertures. The difference between the 17-35 and the 18-70 is immediately apparent. All shots are unprocessed (including white balance correction) and unsharpened. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Hmmm, yes, but with a lens that isn't sharp, contrast in detail is lost, >>and with the sample I posted a link to, especially when you look at the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and the 18-70 is immediately apparent. All shots are unprocessed > (including white balance correction) and unsharpened. Thanks for doing that. I am stunned. Are you sure that the 18-70 does not have a serious problem? It looks to me that it is faulty. You would clearly see that difference with a D70 image, and for 100% crops at any focal length - even 18mm where it does get softer, that is an extreme difference. When I resample your image from the 18-70, it is _extremely_ soft, regardless of the apparent difference in exposure. > I am stunned. Keep in mind that the brand-new price on the 17-35 is more than four times what the 18-70 goes for. :) (I got mine used.) > Are you sure that the 18-70 does not have a serious problem? It looks to > me that it is faulty. I have quite a few perfectly good shots done with it. It's not that the 18-70 is bad; it's that the 17-35 is that much better. > You would clearly see that difference with a D70 image, and for 100% > crops at any focal length - even 18mm where it does get softer, that is > an extreme difference. When I resample your image from the 18-70, it is > _extremely_ soft, regardless of the apparent difference in exposure. I'd be happy to give you the full DNG file for any of those shots if you want; it's not like they have any commercial value or anything. :) (They are around 13 megs each and can be opened with Photoshop CS2, and I assume CS and Elements 3.) The exposures were the same -- manual mode, same flash power at the same aperture for each lens -- so any differences there will be either due to the lens, or the fact that I left Camera Raw's automatic adjustments on. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>I am stunned. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have quite a few perfectly good shots done with it. It's not that the > 18-70 is bad; it's that the 17-35 is that much better. I am certain that the 18-70 is faulty if that is what you get. I'm not saying that the 17-35 shouldn't be better, but the poor focus and detail resolved in that shot, if the parameters were the same, indicates that the lens has either mechanical damage or a back focus issue. You should get it serviced. There is no way - absolutely no way - that I see anywhere near that difference between an 18-70 at 28mm, and a great old 28mm f 2.0 prime at f4. In that case, if there is a difference in resolution, it is a very subjective call. > The exposures were the same -- manual mode, same flash power at the same > aperture for each lens -- so any differences there will be either due to > the lens, or the fact that I left Camera Raw's automatic adjustments on. I took a similar image to yours with a D70, 18-70 at f4 and 24mm. I took several exposures to get the crop ratio right. I then upsampled (cubic) the D70 image 50%, equivalent to a 4500 x 3000 full frame. Then I did a comparison with your images here: http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/remote.jpg The 17-35 D2x shot and my 18-70 D70 shot show me exactly what I expected - more detail on the D2x shot, and visible aliasing on the upsampled D70 shot. The difference is probably exaggerated a little by the upsampling, and also I used iso 200 (minimum on D70). Your 18-70 D2x shot is from way out in left field. If that is what you get, then if I hope your warranty is still valid for the 18-70. There is no way a +50% resampled D70 image should outresolve a D2x image by such a margin with the same lens at the same focal length and at the same aperture. Your 18-70 is faulty. > Then I did a comparison with your images here: > http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/remote.jpg Thanks. I'll try another test when I get a chance. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >The 17-35 is visibly better than the 18-70, on a D2x. I don't think I'm >qualified to do a "real" lens test of any significance. Note that this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >consisting of looking at the pictures -- contrast, for example, tends >to affect one's perception of sharpness. Sharpness is basically a combination of resolution and contrast. So contrast is very much a part of one's perception of sharpness. > He may have been talking about telecentric design, which does provide > an advantage, but doesn't mean that a DX lens will be better than a > non-DX lens by virtue of being a DX lens. Also, telecentric design > is of course not limited to DX lenses, though that's where we'll tend > to see it since it didn't matter so much with film. The salesman might have also bought into the "digitally optimized" hype from Sigma (DG) and Tamron (DI). My own read on those claims is that those manufacturers finally stopped cutting corners on coatings. > I promise you that the 17-35mm f/2.8 is better and sharper than the > 18-70mm DX kit lens. Or, probably a better comparison, the 17-35 is > considered better than the 17-55 DX. Just to complete the story, the 17-35mm f/2.8 is a near-telecentric design. I believe neither the Nikkor 18-35mm nor Nikon's rectilinear wide-angle primes use such a design. Opinion seems divided on the 17-35mm vs. 17-55mm comparison. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > Just to complete the story, the 17-35mm f/2.8 is a near-telecentric > design. I believe neither the Nikkor 18-35mm nor Nikon's rectilinear > wide-angle primes use such a design. Could explain a lot, including why the 17-35 is supposed to be better even than most of the fixed-length lenses in that range, at least at the wide end. > Opinion seems divided on the 17-35mm vs. 17-55mm comparison. When I was deciding which to buy, I had to filter the user opinions by *why* the people preferred one to the other. For example, the extra zoom range of the 17-55 turned out not to matter much to me, after looking over my previous pictures and what focal lengths they used on which lenses. It seemed that the 17-55 was not quite as good, suffers some chromatic aberration, and is both somewhat cheaper and preferred sometimes due to having a longer zoom range. I was interested in the best possible quality, and didn't care about that extra 20mm, and the 17-35 seemed to be the one to get -- no one describes the 17-55 as being better than the fixed-length wide angles. It's really quite an amazing lens. (And it's quite a beast, too -- on a D70 it seems disproportionately large!) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
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
|
©2009 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.