login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Nikon 24-105G-N! Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


...is what I long for from the big N. The 24-70 2.8GN, whilst so tempting just doesn't have the reach I need. 24-70 is pretty useless by today's standard, unless you're stuck in the studio.

If Canon can produce such an awesome all rounder like the 24-105L F4, then so should N be able to!
Feb 02 13 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


What utter, utter bollocks... I don't think I've ever read anything so bloody daft in all my life... hmm

24-70 is a perfect all rounder. For the times you need to get a bit closer, you shoot with a 70-200 on your other camera-body. big_smile
Feb 02 13 09:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


RKD Photographic wrote:
What utter, utter bollocks... I don't think I've ever read anything so bloody daft in all my life... hmm

Care to explain why?

Feb 02 13 09:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


sorry, but 1400.00 for a 24-70 which is nothing spectacular, now that really is a load of bollocks.
Feb 02 13 09:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,248
Orlando, Florida, US


A better question is why can't Canon produce a 14-24mm L lens?

There's a perfectly good reason why you shoot with a 14-24, a 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of a 14-200.  Physics.
Feb 02 13 09:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,068
Alexandria, Virginia, US


The 24_120 N is very close in performance to the 24_70 f2.8 up to 100mm before it looses a bit. It is on the Nikon approved list for the D800 camera...
Feb 02 13 09:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Good Egg Productions wrote:
A better question is why can't Canon produce a 14-24mm L lens?

There's a perfectly good reason why you shoot with a 14-24, a 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of a 14-200.  Physics.

Yes, but that's the point of having a 24-105, so you don't have to keep changing lenses and swapping bodies. Let's face it Canon have a much better range at a comparable level.

If I could, I'd switch to the 5DIII in a hearbeat!

Feb 02 13 09:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Fotografica Gregor wrote:
The 24_120 N is very close in performance to the 24_70 f2.8 up to 100mm before it looses a bit. It is on the Nikon approved list for the D800 camera...

The 24-120N is at best mediocre to average, the Canon 24-105 smokes it!

Feb 02 13 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Creative Concept Studio
Posts: 2,542
Fort Worth, Texas, US


OP: Are you aware your EXIF data shows your Copyright & Artist info as follows?

Artist = {{LF}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}

Copyright Owner = {{LF}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}

-------------------

Why can't you switch to Canon if you're so unhappy with Nikon's pro lens selections?

Ray
Feb 02 13 09:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,068
Alexandria, Virginia, US


London Fog wrote:

The 24-120N is at best mediocre to average, the Canon 24-105 smokes it!

The 24_105L is just special no doubt about it, but I strongly refute your characterization of the 24_120 N as mediocre -

Feb 02 13 09:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


London Fog wrote:

Care to explain why?

It just is.
I'm sure all the thousands of fashion, wedding, event, sports and press photographers who use the 24-70 as a standard zoom, making it probably the most popular pro-lens in their inventory will be crushed by your verdict that it's 'useless'...

On the contrary - I find it to be my go-to lens for model shoots if I'm not studio-bound - In the studio, I'll shoot with whatever prime fits the bill between 35mm and 135mm, but on location the 24-70 is perfect. If I need a longer lens I swap to the other body with the 70-200 VR-II on it.

Since you didn't mention price in your OP I disregarded that as irrelevant.

If you'd said "...the 24-70 is a bit overpriced...", I might agree - but you didn't, did you?

Feb 02 13 09:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Creative Concept Studio wrote:
OP: Are you aware your EXIF data shows your Copyright & Artist info as follows?

Artist = {{LF}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}

Copyright Owner = {{LF}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}{{TAB}}

-------------------

Why can't you switch to Canon if you're so unhappy with Nikon's pro lens selections?

Ray

Are people really so anal that they have to look at others EXIF data? Personally, I couldn't care less if my EXIF data showed that it was owned by Darth Vader!

That aside, I am already heavily invested with Nikon, have been for over 21 years, but I just find that their new lenses are cheap, very plasticky and just average to good performance wise.

C on the other hand has an orgasmic L series line-up, they just need better bodies!

Feb 02 13 09:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


RKD Photographic wrote:

It just is.
I'm sure all the thousands of fashion, wedding, event, sports and press photographers who use the 24-70 as a standard zoom, making it probably the most popular pro-lens in their inventory will be crushed by your verdict that it's 'useless'...

On the contrary - I find it to be my go-to lens for model shoots if I'm not studio-bound - In the studio, I'll shoot with whatever prime fits the bill between 35mm and 135mm, but on location the 24-70 is perfect. If I need a longer lens I swap to the other body with the 70-200 VR-II on it.

Since you didn't mention price in your OP I disregarded that as irrelevant.

If you'd said "...the 24-70 is a bit overpriced...", I might agree - but you didn't, did you?

I didn't say the 24-70 was useless, far from it! I said, or should have said that the range is useless, which it is, given the price and all other factors.

Nikon just use their reputation and name to get away with this shit!

Feb 02 13 09:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


London Fog wrote:
24-70 is pretty useless by today's standard, unless you're stuck in the studio.

Umm - yes you did...

And the range is fine unless you're one of those people who like to show off their massive lenses at Photo-Shows...

Feb 02 13 10:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,090
New York, New York, US


The Nikon 24-120 f4 G lens is amazing, and it has a little extra reach compared to the Canon. It's our general, all-purpose lens for events and daytime television. I highly recommend it.

(Not the old Nikon 24-120, which was arguably one of the worst lenses Nikon every made.)
Feb 02 13 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,090
New York, New York, US


Feb 02 13 10:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,248
Orlando, Florida, US


London Fog wrote:

I didn't say the 24-70 was useless, far from it! I said, or should have said that the range is useless, which it is, given the price and all other factors.

Nikon just use their reputation and name to get away with this shit!

Yes, obviously they're not producing a lens that nobody has asked for just to piss you off because they can.

Look... Nikon has a perfect trifecta of pro lenses.  14-24, 24-70, 70-200.  If you are too lazy or unwilling to switch lenses, how is that Nikon's fault?

I can understand your frustration.  For years, I was disappointed with the bodies Nikon offered over Canon's excellent run with the 5D and 5DII and 7D.  But now Nikon has caught up and mostly surpassed.  For now.  The pendulum will likely swing the other way.

Lots of professional people are doing very fine work with the existing lens lineup from Nikon.  I just don't see why this lens would solve all the problems Nikon isn't having.

Feb 02 13 10:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


RKD Photographic wrote:

Umm - yes you did...

And the range is fine unless you're one of those people who like to show off their massive lenses at Photo-Shows...

Well, ok I meant that the range is useless, which for me it is, especially for outdoors, and especially given the ridiculous price!

Feb 02 13 10:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,453
Paris, Île-de-France, France


If you can believe the site that has the side by sides of the resolution chart, the Canon 24-105 L is, to my eyes, much better at resolving the chart compared to the 24-120G .

One of the reasons I stayed with Canon, when I could have switched. I bought a new  24-105 as the old one had lens creep and a tiny bit of dust after 5 years of use.

The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is very good, I had nothing to worry about there. Yet the 105 micro is IMO not up to par, whereas the Canon zoom is good enough at most ranges for my level of detail.
Micro focusing Canon lenses is essential. Anyone who tests without doing that is going to miss the best from the lenses. Perhaps Nikon is the same.

So to the OP, yeah if Nikon make a new lens, at least have one equivalent and for a decent price as the 24-105 L. Yet Canon should make a decent 85 1.8 equivalent in price and character as Nikon..... Or make mounts universal, then  you could have it your way!~
Feb 02 13 10:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Neil Snape wrote:
If you can believe the site that has the side by sides of the resolution chart, the Canon 24-105 L is, to my eyes, much better at resolving the chart compared to the 24-120G .

One of the reasons I stayed with Canon, when I could have switched. I bought a new  24-105 as the old one had lens creep and a tiny bit of dust after 5 years of use.

The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is very good, I had nothing to worry about there. Yet the 105 micro is IMO not up to par, whereas the Canon zoom is good enough at most ranges for my level of detail.
Micro focusing Canon lenses is essential. Anyone who tests without doing that is going to miss the best from the lenses. Perhaps Nikon is the same.

So to the OP, yeah if Nikon make a new lens, at least have one equivalent and for a decent price as the 24-105 L. Yet Canon should make a decent 85 1.8 equivalent in price and character as Nikon..... Or make mounts universal, then  you could have it your way!~

Hehe, yeah Neil, in an ideal world I'd stick my 24-105L on my D800!

Feb 02 13 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,719
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


Neil Snape wrote:
whereas the Canon zoom is good enough at most ranges for my level of detail.

If you're talking the 24-70 I ... try the 24-70 II wink

Feb 02 13 10:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Neil Snape wrote:
Micro focusing Canon lenses is essential. Anyone who tests without doing that is going to miss the best from the lenses. Perhaps Nikon is the same.

It is: I calibrate all my lenses and check them once a year or so... It's noticeable only when shooting wide-open obviously, but if you have an f/2 or f/1.4 lens, why not use it to the maximum of its ability?
I also didn't notice it so much when using D1x and D2x, but when moving up to D3 and D3x it was more apparent - I guess with D4 and D800 it's even more so.

And you're right about the Micro-Nikkor 105 - I hated it - the DC-Nikkor 105 f/2 is wa-aaaaay better.

Feb 02 13 10:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Creative Concept Studio
Posts: 2,542
Fort Worth, Texas, US


London Fog wrote:

Are people really so anal that they have to look at others EXIF data? Personally, I couldn't care less if my EXIF data showed that it was owned by Darth Vader!

That aside, I am already heavily invested with Nikon, have been for over 21 years, but I just find that their new lenses are cheap, very plasticky and just average to good performance wise.

C on the other hand has an orgasmic L series line-up, they just need better bodies!

You did not mention whether you used a DX or FX body so I looked at the EXIF data to see what possible reason you could have for making such asinine statements about the 24-70. Noticed the error in the EXIF and made the effort to inform you. Not paying attention to details like your capsulized data speaks volumes.

You're here only to argue; fine with me. I'm out of here.

Ray

Feb 02 13 10:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,453
Paris, Île-de-France, France


Phil Drinkwater wrote:

If you're talking the 24-70 I ... try the 24-70 II wink

No the 24-105. A bit soft at around 45mm and then at 70 or so.

Yes I know the 24-70 II is a sacred lens. Likely ready for a rumoured big sensor Canon....

Feb 02 13 10:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Creative Concept Studio wrote:

You did not mention whether you used a DX or FX body so I looked at the EXIF data to see what possible reason you could have for making such asinine statements about the 24-70. Noticed the error in the EXIF and made the effort to inform you. Not paying attention to details like your capsulized data speaks volumes.

You're here only to argue; fine with me. I'm out of here.

Ray

Bye!

Feb 02 13 11:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9,159
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


N and C never really has lenses that are head to head with each other.  There are lenses that N is better and there are lenses that C is better. 

The new N lenses has been great.  Now, if only they would upgrade the DC lenses.
Feb 02 13 11:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,090
New York, New York, US


Hilarious.

The OP is about Nikon's lack of a good 24-105ish f4 like Canon has. It was posted TODAY.

Except that Nikon put out an amazing 24-120 f4 like 2 years ago that gets nothing but positive reviews, but the OP....wasn't aware of this lens....?

...and the thread devolves into bickering about...whatever.



Oy.
Feb 02 13 11:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,090
New York, New York, US


ChanStudio wrote:
The new N lenses has been great.  Now, if only they would upgrade the DC lenses.

I hear you on this. There was a patent filed for a new 105 a while back that I saw on Nikon Rumors, and I keep holding out for some kind of announcement. But at the same time, all the G lenses are so frighteningly sharp that they're actually a little cruel, so the older glass might do just fine for me.

Feb 02 13 11:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,832
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


London Fog wrote:
Let's face it Canon have a much better range at a comparable level.

If you are happy with f4 lenses.... I'm not... f2.8 or faster...

Feb 02 13 12:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


David M Russell wrote:
Hilarious.

The OP is about Nikon's lack of a good 24-105ish f4 like Canon has. It was posted TODAY.

Except that Nikon put out an amazing 24-120 f4 like 2 years ago that gets nothing but positive reviews, but the OP....wasn't aware of this lens....?

...and the thread devolves into bickering about...whatever.



Oy.

Hilarious is right, the 24-120 is junk!

Feb 02 13 12:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Feb 02 13 12:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,944
Eugene, Oregon, US


A 24 to 120 f2.8 would be at least twice the size and weight of the f4 version and at least twice the price - I would guess 4 times.
Feb 02 13 12:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,068
Alexandria, Virginia, US


London Fog wrote:

Hilarious is right, the 24-120 is junk!

You make some of the
most entertaining and grandiose statements....  Which is harmless to those who know enough not to take you seriously lol

Feb 02 13 12:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
fullmetalphotographer
Posts: 2,739
Fresno, California, US


London Fog wrote:
...is what I long for from the big N. The 24-70 2.8GN, whilst so tempting just doesn't have the reach I need. 24-70 is pretty useless by today's standard, unless you're stuck in the studio.

If Canon can produce such an awesome all rounder like the 24-105L F4, then so should N be able to!

If i was a smart ass I would ask what color is the sky in your world after reading that statement, but I am not. wink

I use a AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED and works very well out of the studio. I might suggest if you need a longer reach AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. There is also the TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8. It is a bit soft @ f/2.8 above the 50mm range but this lens will do some nice closeup work. http://www.keh.com/PDFFolder/NA09999031521.pdf. Sigma makes lenses in that range but i have not used them.

Feb 02 13 01:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Macapodi
Posts: 287
New York, New York, US


If a 24-70mm is "limiting" it's a wonder I'm able to get anything done shooting with only primes.
Feb 02 13 02:37 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,157
Baltimore, Maryland, US


So, the 24-70 f2.8 is too limited and expensive. The 24-120 f4 is too low quality. So, you want a 24-105 f3.5? I think that might cause some oberlap...

Most Canon shooters I know are not fond of the 24-105 f4. Its not Canons sharpest optic.
Feb 02 13 03:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,719
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


Robb Mann wrote:
So, the 24-70 f2.8 is too limited and expensive. The 24-120 f4 is too low quality. So, you want a 24-105 f3.5? I think that might cause some oberlap...

Most Canon shooters I know are not fond of the 24-105 f4. Its not Canons sharpest optic.

It's not the finest lens in the world, but a reasonably solid studio (f8/f11) performer. The last few years canons optics have been much better but that lens is from a time of 12mp when it was good enough.

I do get why people love it though: if I was shooting portraits in studio it would be my choice because its good enough for that. I wouldn't choose it for beauty though - 70-200 f4 would be my weapon of choice I think.. Or the 105 or 135.

I guess just like anything else, a lens is a tool to fit a job.

Feb 02 13 03:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Robb Mann wrote:
So, the 24-70 f2.8 is too limited and expensive. The 24-120 f4 is too low quality. So, you want a 24-105 f3.5? I think that might cause some oberlap...

Most Canon shooters I know are not fond of the 24-105 f4. Its not Canons sharpest optic.

Sorry Rob, but you are wrong, most Canon shooters adore the 24-105, just one of many reasons why they've kept it around for so long! Sure, it might not be the sharpest L lens, but it literally 'smokes' anything in that range from Nikon.

It's stunning enough on the 7D, so I can only imagine how incredible it must be on the 5DIII, let alone any future megapixel models they have up their sleeve.

The point is that apart from the so called 'holy trinity' of Nikon lenses, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 etc they have little to match the rest of the L series from the big C.

Of course the Nikon fans won't have any of this and will be hurl more insults my way...

...bring it on, I couldn't give a rats ass!

Feb 02 13 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,529
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Fotografica Gregor wrote:

You make some of the
most entertaining and grandiose statements....  Which is harmless to those who know enough not to take you seriously lol

shhhhhhhh! I need my entertainment until Merlin is playing. then if I plan on starting early tomorrow, I will need my entertainment for the rest of the night.  Don't give him any doubts!


p.s. I don't shoot Nikon but any lens that on Nikon's D800-approved list has got to be more awesome than all the lenses that failed to make the cut.  Everyone I know who got D800s was suddenly selling off glass on our local boards.

Feb 02 13 04:32 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,157
Baltimore, Maryland, US


London Fog wrote:

Sorry Rob, but you are wrong, most Canon shooters adore the 24-105, just one of many reasons why they've kept it around for so long! Sure, it might not be the sharpest L lens, but it literally 'smokes' anything in that range from Nikon.

It's stunning enough on the 7D, so I can only imagine how incredible it must be on the 5DIII, let alone any future megapixel models they have up their sleeve.

The point is that apart from the so called 'holy trinity' of Nikon lenses, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 etc they have little to match the rest of the L series from the big C.

Of course the Nikon fans won't have any of this and will be hurl more insults my way...

...bring it on, I couldn't give a rats ass!

Well, my Canon shooting friends feel differently than you do. Ive never used it.

Feb 02 13 04:35 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers