|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon 24-105G-N!
I love this trash talk. one would think from some posts that anything other than the current leader in a category is so bad that plastic throwaway cameras have better resolution  I have yet to pick up a lens that was anywhere near as bad. but hold that thought. I found a minute amount of pincushion distortion on my monitor. It is simply unsuitable for posting on MM. I'll be right back as soon as I find a better screen Feb 02 13 04:46 pm Link I did shoot the 24-105L f/4 a few times when I shot for Pulitzer Newspapers. When I could not get the 24-70mm f/2.8 L (sweet lens) the 24-105L f/4 was an OK consumer lens. It suffers the same issues as the issues as the TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8, it has far amount of distortion and is a bit soft wide open above 50mm range. This is not a fanboy thing it is the tendency of all lenses at focal length range. There is a reason the 24-70mm f/2.8 range is heavily used by pros. All zooms are compromises in design. But when the engineers try to stretch to get that extra focal length sharpness at wide open suffers as well lens distortions increase. If cost is the real driving issue here. A used AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED will $1000 US. A used TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8 will run about $400 or less. But you need to shoot it at f/4 if you at 50mm or above. I own bothe these lenses and they are good the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED is a great deal and extremely sharp. Another good possibility is the AT-X 287 AF PRO SV - TOKINA 28-70mm f/2.8 which will run for $300 or less. This is a very sharp lens especially at f/2.8. I used it for 10 years until a reporter killed it. Feb 02 13 05:18 pm Link I do kind of think the Nikon 24-120 F/4 is a bit of an overrated lens. It's solid and convenient and all that, but at least for me, in the range I most want it to be good in, it doesn't perform all that well. I wanted it for the 70-120 range with the option to go wide when I needed to, but that was the focal range where it performed its weakest. It's plenty good at f/8-11, but so are a ton of other lenses. It's a pretty good walk around lens though and I bet it would be a champ for travel as it is pretty solid in that 35-85 range. It's not as heavy as some of the alternatives and it is a good focal range, but for me there were too many compromises for the cost of that lens. I just traded mine in two days ago actually. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh on it as I had rather high hopes for it, but I didn't think it lived up to the hype some folks gave it....then again maybe I had a bad copy or something. Feb 02 13 11:32 pm Link London Fog wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about. Feb 02 13 11:35 pm Link David M Russell wrote: My favourite portrait lens (when I'm playing around) is an old Nikkor-P 105 f/2.5 made in 1968 - be-yoo-ti-ful lens... Feb 03 13 03:12 am Link David M Russell wrote:
Feb 03 13 03:16 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: That's where you are wrong, I tried the 24-70 2.8 on my D800, it's nothing spectacular at all, and definitely not at that ridiculous price ! Even my 21 year old 50mm 1.8 AF has better contrast, and a like for like image comparison of the RAW's revealed that the older lens has a better level of sharpness too! Feb 03 13 08:06 am Link Also, not fond of the build quality of the 24-70, it is definitely not as well put together as the older 28-70 2.8 ED, so if I go for a lens with that 'useless' range it might well be the tougher, albeit slightly less sharp, but more solid ED. Feb 03 13 08:15 am Link London Fog wrote: You got me there - it's definitely flimsier, however 'trying' and 'owning' aren't the same - especially on a D800 - these lenses need to be calibrated to the bodies - all three of my bodies require different amounts of fine-tuning for all of the lenses I own. Feb 03 13 08:26 am Link so much ridiculous on the camera forums. what happened to reason and science and perspective and all that? it was only a few years ago that canon was being praised for sensors and the L lenses being dogged. nikon was bashed for their sensors and the glass was holy. now it's the opposite. even though it's a lot of the same exact lenses. gives me the lulz. the 24-120/4 is known to suffer tremendously from sample variation. a perfect version is apparently a stunning exemplar of lens achievement...and a lot of them are out of whack enough that the lens gets slammed as being mediocre at best. and i've seen similar varying reports of the 105vr...that it's not up to canon's version, and also that it's the sharpest lens in the lineup. both can't be true. but, such is the world i suppose, where bombastic dick wagging and sound bites are easier to digest than actual consideration. Feb 03 13 01:04 pm Link D M E C K E R T wrote: Yep, pretty much, that's why I won't touch that junk 24-120 with a bargepole! Feb 03 13 01:13 pm Link |
It occurs to me the OP might just possibly not have actually used all of the lenses he's so scathing about and merely repeating web-uendo remarks read elsewhere... 
