f/2.8 lenses - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/09/2009 02:25:13 AM · #1

I am in the market for a XX-70 f2.8 lenses and I want some opinions and some specific questions to be answered, hopefully.
I have already looked on review sites. FM reviews, photozone and etc...

I will be using a D300 for action photos.
The AF needs to be as good as 50mm 1.8D (slightly slower is ok) but accuracy is a must.
Needs to be as sharp as 50mm 1.8D at 2.8 or damn close. VS XX-70mm at 2.8.
My target budget is $300 but I can go UP to $450.

Lenses I have been eye balling...
Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 I can find around $350
Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DG
Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG MACRO
Tokina 24-70 2.8 (This is the hardest to find.)
Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD (WITH OUT built in motor, I know how slow that thing is and it is a deal breaker!)

Here is an idea of what specifically I will be using it for
Airsoft

Thank in advance

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/09/2009 06:19:37 AM · #2

Sigma just came out with a brand new 24-70 f/2.8

I've heard a lot of great things about their old one, so I'd put that well up on my list of possibles (actually it is on my list for when I go to 5D II).

I think that may be the best you could get in that price range. If it is still in that price range.

From my general looking around, I have found that most people feel that Tokina lenses are very sharp, but usually have some fringing issues.

The Tamron is another superb choice, but it fell off my list due to it's focal length and personal preference. Nothing specifically against it.

Aside from the Sigma, the Nikon lens is probably the only one that will beat it for AF.

Regarding the 'as sharp as a 50mm 1.8D at f/2.8', I think you are pretty much dreaming.

The 50mm f/1.8 (and I'm referring to the Nikkor, not the Canon) is wicked sweet and is sharp enough to shave with at f/2.8 where it has already been stopped down a stop and a half ish. I have good lenses, but a 50mm prime is uber-sharp (in any incarnation).

A good 24-70 will come close a couple of stops down (f/5 or so), but the 50mm will always be a good stretch ahead of it. At f/2.8, no zoom will be at its best.

However, from the looks of things (in your link), it's not like you are doing fine art, so I think you will be fine with any of those lenses for sharpness. When you buy it, do extensive sharpness tests on the lens in the first week and if it's not up to your standard, talk to the vendor.

If you think it's crap wide open, but decent after stopping down a bit, that's pretty much the way it is and you are probably just going to have to learn to work with it. Especially at that price range.

To be honest, I'm planning on setting aside $1500 for new glass and goodies when I go FF and that's probably going to be 80 or 90% in just one lens. Even still, I won't be surprised if it's a bit soft at f/2.8.

Message edited by author 2009-03-09 06:25:13.

rob_smith

Nikon D300

03/09/2009 06:49:59 AM · #3

Originally posted by eschelar:

I agree, and that's some very good advice.

Prof_Fate

03/09/2009 09:00:43 AM · #4

I don't use Nikon gear, but have used the Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR and canon's 24-70 2.8L and there is no comparison on focus speed - the tamron is slow enough that you'll miss action shots.

So if focus speed is important I'd say get the best Nikon glass you can.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/09/2009 10:39:14 AM · #5

Sigma's EX series of lenses are pretty decent. I would stay within the EX series if I were considering non-Nikkor lenses.

Nikkor's 24-85 f/2.8-4 is a wonderful lens - however outside your budget - unless you can find one on Ebay. What is especially nice about this focal range is that it marries identically to the auto range of the SB600 Speedlight. Clarity can be especially sharp and detailed with this lens - in my opinion it surpases both my single focal 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 Nikkors.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

03/09/2009 10:56:49 AM · #6

Some of Tamron's lenses are being outfitted with SWMs, which helps with the speed. My buddy has the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with a SWM and it's pretty quick, but not as good as most of Nikon's SWM lenses.

Cboydrun

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

03/09/2009 11:07:49 AM · #7

Speaking for the sigma choices... the 24-70 2.8 you have mentioned.. avoid it... you love it for 8 months or more and the keep dreaming of upgrading as its just not near as sharp, fast, clear, etc... as its canon and nikor competitor. Now I have heard great things about the new HSM version... and as for the 70-200 2.8 thats a great lens. I have a friend who uses it a lot and I borrow it from time to time. sharp fast and quit. and for the price... can't be beat.

bmartuch

Nikon D7200

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G

03/09/2009 12:01:07 PM · #8

Interesting choices.

03/09/2009 12:26:03 PM · #9

Originally posted by Cboydrun:

No offense, but that doesn't make any sense. The nikkor and Canon versions are around 3 times the price of the sigma.

Flash, at what apertures does the 24-85 f/2.8-4 match the 50mm for sharpness? I would find this quite surprising personally as I have used more than a half dozen nikkor 50mm f/1.8's (photo club is almost exclusively Nikon), a couple of canon 50mm f/1.2's, 5 canon 50mm f/1.8's (which I did my own sharpness tests on) and own a pair of canon 50mm f/1.4's (one is FD with manual aperture for reversing, the other is a modern USM).

I've used a lot of other very decent lenses as well, and few of them can match any of the 50mm's at f/2.8.

Most lenses are pretty good at f/8 ish, which would work well with the flash too.

Using flash with a Nikon isn't a terrible idea either due to the super-fun wireless commander mode.

03/09/2009 01:26:53 PM · #10

Originally posted by eschelar:

Flash, at what apertures does the 24-85 f/2.8-4 match the 50mm for sharpness? I would find this quite surprising personally as I have used more than a half dozen nikkor 50mm f/1.8's (photo club is almost exclusively Nikon), a couple of canon 50mm f/1.2's, 5 canon 50mm f/1.8's (which I did my own sharpness tests on) and own a pair of canon 50mm f/1.4's (one is FD with manual aperture for reversing, the other is a modern USM).

I've used a lot of other very decent lenses as well, and few of them can match any of the 50mm's at f/2.8.

Most lenses are pretty good at f/8 ish, which would work well with the flash too.

Using flash with a Nikon isn't a terrible idea either due to the super-fun wireless commander mode.

f/5.6

Here is where I go for my trusted review information. The upper left side on the home page has a link for lenses. He rates the 50's at 5 and the 24-85 at 4 with its surprising sharpness and detail surfacing at f/5.6 and running through f/16.

When I look through my files and assess those shots that are the sharpest, typically I find the 24-85 was on the body. Although - I must admit to it being on the camera most - simply due to its framing versatility and identical focal lengths to the SB600. It certainly is a lens "I" rely on.

edit to add: from the op's intended usage (as per his link), there is nothing in those thumbnails that the 24-85 f/2.8-4 would not meeet or exceed. Plus give the op a very decent piece of glass (near professional grade) with the advantage of mirroring his speedlight focal lengths. Of course - he may simply decide on the Sigma Ex series.

Message edited by author 2009-03-09 13:43:18.

ben4345

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/09/2009 07:08:21 PM · #11

Found this pic with the nikon, if it's really that sharpthen it already blows the 50mm away at 2.8 or even 3.5

03/10/2009 07:21:16 AM · #12

Originally posted by ben4345:

Found this pic with the nikon, if it's really that sharpthen it already blows the 50mm away at 2.8 or even 3.5

Ben -

I am not sure I understand why you are seeking a zoom in the focal lengths of 35-70 when you already own glass (18-55Dx) in near that range. Your stated intent is "action" shots and I am wondering if simply increasing your ISO could meet your needs. I'll post a couple of "action" shots shot at ISO 1600 with a Sigma EX lens with a minimum apperature of f/4-6.3 (very close to your 18-55 aperature ratings).

Message edited by author 2009-03-10 07:26:41.

03/10/2009 08:56:17 AM · #13

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Flash, at what apertures does the 24-85 f/2.8-4 match the 50mm for sharpness?

edit to add: from the op's intended usage (as per his link), there is nothing in those thumbnails that the 24-85 f/2.8-4 would not meeet or exceed. Plus give the op a very decent piece of glass (near professional grade) with the advantage of mirroring his speedlight focal lengths. Of course - he may simply decide on the Sigma Ex series.

I absolutely agree with the last paragraph.

And he did say that his choices included 'damn close'.

I think that my point was more coming from the other side, pointing out the fact that the 50mm is really, really, really sharp, and it's starting to get nice and close to it's 'sweet range' so it's a poor choice when setting his standard for a zoom lens which will likely be at a disadvantage when shot wide open. If he's really strict about his sharpness and he's going to be comparing directly to the 50mm f/1.8, then I think he's set the bar a bit too high for his price range.

FWIW, I'm quite happy with the sharpness of my Tammy 17-50 f/2.8 in most circumstances and it's not sharper than the 24-85.

PS. Ben. That nikon shot looks really good, but look a bit closer. It doesn't say the zoom factor on the eye. Or any other part of the pic. The original provided is 752x1000. Now this may be a crop intended to show a 100% or 50% zoom, but it doesn't say so and there are no other parts or crops of that image in that folder. I'll just have to guess that it's a resize of the full original image.

If the full image is a representation of the full image from the camera, then those eye crops are nowhere near 100%. They are probably closer to 25%. Just about any lens can look sharp at 25% zoom. Further, there isn't any real evidence to say that he's shooting these in RAW, so I'm going to guess that they are JPGs which have been sharpened in camera.

Naw, not really the same as a good 50. I've seen eyelash definition pretty close to that on 2/3 full body shots in RAW with 0 sharpening and in crappy light.

03/10/2009 09:26:11 AM · #14

Originally posted by eschelar:

And he did say that his choices included 'damn close'.

I think that my point was more coming from the other side, pointing out the fact that the 50mm is really, really, really sharp, and it's starting to get nice and close to it's 'sweet range' so it's a poor choice when setting his standard for a zoom lens which will likely be at a disadvantage when shot wide open. If he's really strict about his sharpness and he's going to be comparing directly to the 50mm f/1.8, then I think he's set the bar a bit too high for his price range.

I took some liberties in attempting to understand what he likely meant versus what he wrote. At $300-450, a zoom with f/2.8 capabilities equal to a single focal was unrealistic. It read to me that he wanted "sharp" photos in an action mode and was not satisfied with his current 18-55Dx as he felt it was too slow to focus and surmised that if he had a "faster" lens like a 35-70 f/2.8, then he could get a faster focus on his action shots and they would be "sharp". I personally believe a higher ISO would solve his concerns, still meet his needs for sharp action photos and he could save the $450 and put it towards a professional grade Nikkor Zoom that he would cherish for a long long time. But again - I took some liberties with my assumptions and only offered my opinion on what might work for him - based on what works for me.

03/10/2009 09:55:45 AM · #15

fair enough. I think we were heading in the same direction there, just with different words. And like I said, I quite agree with you in your general point. He'd probably be doing quite well with a good flash too - if he could use it skillfully - and if it was within the total budget.

peace.

ben4345