MDM Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 On 26/07/2018 at 23:07, Matthew Johnson said: Wow! A lot of people really like the 24-70 and 24-105 lenses. Is buying the f/2.8 versions over the f/4 worth all the extra cash? My favorites arethe Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and the canon 70-200 f/4. 13 hours ago, Doc said: I'm not sure it is - the 2.8 versions are often nearly twice the cost, and much heavier. They also often do not have Image Stabilisation which the f4 versions frequently have so on balance, easier focussing in darker places accepted, I am inclined to stick with the f4 versions Kumar 9 hours ago, Colin Woods said: My 80-200 f2.8 especially was so heavy that I often didn't bother bringing it. I sold it and got the 70-200 f4. Plus, as Doc says, I get image stabilisation. My D750 is superb at focussing in the dark, so I have no regrets at all As with most things photographic equipment wise, it all comes down to what you use the lens for and what you consider to be worth paying for. You might even wonder if you can afford to be without a certain technology. If you shoot a lot in low light without a tripod, then the wider aperture lenses have a definite advantage and the newer Nikkor 24-70 2.8 has excellent VR (stabilisation). Unless things have changed recently, then the Canon equivalent does not have stabilisation so Doc's argument holds there but not for Nikon. It's not all about wider apertures as well as I said above but also that the focus of development with Nikon appears to have been with the pro lenses. For example, the latest 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor has superior AF tracking to its predecessors (2.8 and 4) but there is a hefty price difference. If you shoot fast action, then it is something to really consider: can I actually get the shot with the older lens? This thinking applies across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 My new "Favorite Lens" or the one that makes me the most money is my 70-200 ED VR NIKKOR f4. I was a huge fan of the original NIKKOR 80-200 2.8 and have had a number of them over the decades. The 70-200 f4 is much lighter and the VR makes up for it being an f4. I just did a corporate portrait session and the 70-200 was the only lens I used, it was brilliant. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Another Canon 24-105 fan here, it's not perfect - distortion, CA etc, but reliable and convenient. However, having gone mirrorless, my favourite lens is an old Zuiko 50mm f1.8 bought for a fiver, a superb optic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Johnson Posted August 4, 2018 Author Share Posted August 4, 2018 On 8/3/2018 at 04:26, Doc said: I'm not sure it is - the 2.8 versions are often nearly twice the cost, and much heavier. They also often do not have Image Stabilisation which the f4 versions frequently have so on balance, easier focussing in darker places accepted, I am inclined to stick with the f4 versions So far, my 77D has been handling autofocusing in dim and dark situations pretty well. The only time I'm shooting in super dark areas (eg. night sky) I use MF so I can focus my lenses using the focus scale. Also, the 18-135mm STM would be the APS-C equivalent of the 24-105, right? Or should one just use the 24-105 with the crop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 Nikkor 70 - 200 f2,8. Fast and flawless image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 For stock the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is the lens that's married to my camera. For sharpness though I haven't had anything beat my 70-200 f 2.8 and the VRII is outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Dwyer Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 On 8/3/2018 at 23:28, Colin Woods said: My 80-200 f2.8 especially was so heavy that I often didn't bother bringing it. I sold it and got the 70-200 f4. Plus, as Doc says, I get image stabilisation. My D750 is superb at focussing in the dark, so I have no regrets at all Colin, agree totally with you, i use a D750 with a 70-200f4 and a 16-35f4. Both are beautiful lenses that cover almost all of my needs. I dream about a 300mm or a big zoom for bird photography but cant justify it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 On 04/08/2018 at 16:26, Matthew Johnson said: Also, the 18-135mm STM would be the APS-C equivalent of the 24-105, right? Not really, no. 16-70 would be a fairly close equivalent. 18-135 would be more like 28-200. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gallery Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 IS (24-200 in old money). 561grams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 I am exploring new lenses now that I've gone completely mirrorless. Love the Sony FE 90mm macro so far - both as a macro and as a portrait lens. Haven't had it very long and it's mostly been over 90 degrees or pouring out, so haven't really put it through its paces but so far I'm very happy with it. And I also love one of my old Nikons on the Sony. I was going to spring for a very expensive 21mm prime for landscapes until I read several posts by people who loved their 20mm Nikon on the Sony. It is so great in low light and awesome at night and at twilight. I got a manual adapter for under $100 vs $399 for a metabones. Ironically, I didn't use it all that much on my Nikon since I favored the (excellent) 24-70mm f/2.8 for assignments but I'm finally getting my money's worth out of it. For my Olympus, I'm partial to the 17mm f/1.8 (35mm) - super light, extremely sharp, great in low light. It has very little chromatic aberration, much less than some of the much pricier pro lenses I tried out and returned. I also like that I can slide the focusing ring to switch between manual and autofocus. It's a great general prime - but I am also extremely happy with the 40-150mm zoom - the inexpensive version - which I got for $99. Someone in this forum recommended it back in 2014 when I got my Olympus mirrorless. It is so light (under 1/2 lb) - and really sharp. I intended to get the pro version eventually but at $1400 and over 1 1/2 lbs, I don't think it's really worth it for what I shoot these days. The other is just so light to take along, I'd keep it for travel even if I got the pro version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Bryan, I have the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 from my OM-1 and it is gorgeous on the EM-1. I also have a very old Nikon 50mm f/1.4 that I bought on eBay for $49 with the original leather case, when I got my first digital camera. The bokeh on those old lenses is something you can't find in the newer lenses. Love the feel of both. I probably only need to keep one of them, but it's hard to decide. I could sell the Nikon for north of $450, so I may part with it to fund something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 11:15, Inchiquin said: Canon 24-105. It's THE perfect walkabout lens for a stock photographer. I take 95% of my photos with it. One of several reasons why I haven't ditched full-frame DSLR for mirrorless as so many have, and continue to put my shoulder through hell, is because of the difficulty of finding a lens that can match its quality and versatility. Alan +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Johnson Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 I really love my Sigma 18-200mm not because of its sharpness (ahem, lack thereof) but because i can use it as my dust cap on my camera. Now I don't have to worry about grabbing the right lens when I notice something photogenic: I can capture the moment, then I can grab better glass later. Still, I would really like to have a sharper lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gallery Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Marianne wrote: "I am also extremely happy with the 40-150mm zoom - the inexpensive version - which I got for $99. Someone in this forum recommended it back in 2014 when I got my Olympus mirrorless. It is so light (under 1/2 lb) - and really sharp. I intended to get the pro version eventually but at $1400 and over 1 1/2 lbs, I don't think it's really worth it for what I shoot these days. The other is just so light to take along, I'd keep it for travel even if I got the pro version. " I also have an old 4/3 version of the 40-150mm that came as part of a kit that is quite sharp and can be picked up on eBay for less than £25. It gives the 50-200mm SWD a run for its money. The SWD focus speed is reasonable on m4/3 while the 40-150 hunts too much to be useful but I will keep is as a backup for my old bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAROL SAUNDERS Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Can't decide on a favourite, am happy with all my Nikons despite the weight ! Carol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.