DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> 67mm nikon lens suggestions?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/07/2012 12:27:22 AM · #1
what is up peeps,

i want to upgrade to a d600 or d800 for the new year. i want to make sure i get a lens (obviously full frame) that can fit my 67mm filters (kind of an odd size).

i know that i could always get step up or step down rings i guessss, but im just checking to see if there would be any good general purpose/wide angle-ish lenses that i could get, which would mostly benefit my nd filter.
12/07/2012 12:28:46 AM · #2
yea I see what you mean. I would go with the nikon D800 or better yet a canon.
12/07/2012 12:29:55 AM · #3
Originally posted by jovan91:

yea I see what you mean. I would go with the nikon D800 or better yet a canon.


thanks!

this thread can be closed now
12/07/2012 01:08:26 AM · #4
I think of all my lenses the Tamron 28-75 is the only one that is 67. The 85 1.8 is close at 62 so a step up ring wouldn't be too ridiculous on it, but it's no general lens IMO. The only other fx I personally know that is 67 is the 70-300, but again, not the lens you were looking for.

While the Tamron 28-75 enjoys high praise on crop sensors, many complain of it falling apart in the corners on fx. I've only used it a smidge on my F100 and didn't really stare at it with a loupe, so I can't say. There are others who think it's up to the task, though. Two users on the sides of the divide would be ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bohemka. Both have used the lens on fx and would likely be more than willing to give you some insight.
12/07/2012 02:42:56 PM · #5
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I think of all my lenses the Tamron 28-75 is the only one that is 67. The 85 1.8 is close at 62 so a step up ring wouldn't be too ridiculous on it, but it's no general lens IMO. The only other fx I personally know that is 67 is the 70-300, but again, not the lens you were looking for.

While the Tamron 28-75 enjoys high praise on crop sensors, many complain of it falling apart in the corners on fx. I've only used it a smidge on my F100 and didn't really stare at it with a loupe, so I can't say. There are others who think it's up to the task, though. Two users on the sides of the divide would be ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bohemka. Both have used the lens on fx and would likely be more than willing to give you some insight.


thanks, guess there aren't too many available....

what are the downsides (i.e. those "ridiculous" aspects) of using a step up/down ring?
12/07/2012 03:07:54 PM · #6
You're going about this bass ackwards IMNSHO. You need to be concentrating on your lens choices based on your camera and your shooting needs......if you want filters from that point, buy 'em. Considering that you don't have anything now that will help you realize the potential of full frame, your lens choices are your number one priority after your body.

I can't believe the difference just between my D7000 and my D600, so you're really going to love the new body.
12/09/2012 04:00:34 PM · #7
So far as the ridiculous goes... I purposefully tried to get all my filters as 77mm so they would fit the lenses I would eventually get, so my CirPol and ND are both 77. Putting a 77 on a 72 is a negligible difference in size difference, meaning you only need one ring and it only moderately increases the diameter of the end of the lens. But putting that same polarizer on my 24 2.8 is kinda asinine. I've got the rings to do it, but the filter itself is 25mm larger in diameter, so it makes the camera very burdensome to put into bags or whatever and means I can't leave it on there but have to take it off and reapply, which sucks for when I'm backpacking or on climbs and don't want to drop stuff. The increased filter size also makes it a bit awkward to use the focus ring if I'm using manual focus, as well.
See what I mean-
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/90000-94999/93565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1044645.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/90000-94999/93565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1044645.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/90000-94999/93565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1044646.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/90000-94999/93565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1044646.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I do agree with Jeb that lenses should be first consideration, but I also know you probably don't want to buy another high grade filter. If you want to end your worry about having a large enough one in the future, you can get a 77mm and it will fit the overwhelming majority of all lenses, though not all. Some larger tele's will be too big, but unless you intend to do lots of that it shouldn't be a concern for you (their filters are also extremely expensive anyway...). I personally wouldn't use a stepdown for a filter, because you're effectively just cropping your photo every time and minimizing your resolution. It would be a last resort and only a temporary crutch, not a solution.

Message edited by author 2012-12-09 16:12:37.
12/09/2012 04:53:28 PM · #8
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

While the Tamron 28-75 enjoys high praise on crop sensors, many complain of it falling apart in the corners on fx. I've only used it a smidge on my F100 and didn't really stare at it with a loupe, so I can't say. There are others who think it's up to the task, though. Two users on the sides of the divide would be ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bohemka. Both have used the lens on fx and would likely be more than willing to give you some insight.

I'm in the camp that says "Don't get it!" for full frame use. It was a wonderful lens on the crop sensor, major bang-for-the-buck, but it's not too hot at the edges in full frame work, especially landscapes at the wide end. For a while ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' PennyClick used it on her 7D after I went FF, but even she eventually went over to the Canon 24-105mm IS, and we gave the Tamron to her sister...
12/09/2012 05:39:20 PM · #9
I agree with ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' bear_music He clearly has good taste in camera and lens selection!
12/09/2012 08:23:37 PM · #10
If you're talking in to moving to FF body and you are choosing lenses by your 67mm filters, should you really be moing to fullframe?
12/10/2012 06:23:08 AM · #11
What a novel approach, selecting lenses based upon your filter inventory.

While others have pointed out the obvious flaw of this strategy, what struck me as irregular is the dependency on filters at all.

Yes, I use a filter on every lens, but it is more for protection of the front optical surface than for the reasons that I once used them for back in the film days - for correction. Today, I can achieve any filter effect in an image processing tool - Photoshop and the like. So, there is no real need for filtering anymore from the prospective of image manipulation and processing. Of course, a die-hard purest may like to play with filters upfront of the image capture process to avoid subsequent post-production work, but those are rare users too. Buy the lens for the need - macro, wide-angle, portrait, etc. Not for the filter size.
12/10/2012 12:25:39 PM · #12
Originally posted by Morgan:

Yes, I use a filter on every lens, but it is more for protection of the front optical surface than for the reasons that I once used them for back in the film days - for correction. Today, I can achieve any filter effect in an image processing tool - Photoshop and the like.


There are at least two exceptions to that approach, though: neutral density filters allow much longer exposures without increased diffraction and/or DOF in daylight, and polarizing filters reduce reflection off surfaces in a way that can't easily be emulated in post processing...
12/10/2012 12:31:16 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Morgan:

Yes, I use a filter on every lens, but it is more for protection of the front optical surface than for the reasons that I once used them for back in the film days - for correction. Today, I can achieve any filter effect in an image processing tool - Photoshop and the like.


There are at least two exceptions to that approach, though: neutral density filters allow much longer exposures without increased diffraction and/or DOF in daylight, and polarizing filters reduce reflection off surfaces in a way that can't easily be emulated in post processing...


+1 to that brother.

12/10/2012 01:35:11 PM · #14
Originally posted by Morgan:

Yes, I use a filter on every lens, but it is more for protection of the front optical surface than for the reasons that I once used them for back in the film days - for correction. Today, I can achieve any filter effect in an image processing tool - Photoshop and the like.


Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There are at least two exceptions to that approach, though: neutral density filters allow much longer exposures without increased diffraction and/or DOF in daylight, and polarizing filters reduce reflection off surfaces in a way that can't easily be emulated in post processing...


Originally posted by Citadel:

+1 to that brother.

Yeah, but I still wouldn't base my camera and/or lens selections based on whatever of those filters I happened to have in my bag....
12/10/2012 04:28:48 PM · #15
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

While the Tamron 28-75 enjoys high praise on crop sensors, many complain of it falling apart in the corners on fx. I've only used it a smidge on my F100 and didn't really stare at it with a loupe, so I can't say. There are others who think it's up to the task, though. Two users on the sides of the divide would be ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bohemka. Both have used the lens on fx and would likely be more than willing to give you some insight.

I'm in the camp that says "Don't get it!" for full frame use. It was a wonderful lens on the crop sensor, major bang-for-the-buck, but it's not too hot at the edges in full frame work, especially landscapes at the wide end. For a while ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' PennyClick used it on her 7D after I went FF, but even she eventually went over to the Canon 24-105mm IS, and we gave the Tamron to her sister...


To be fair that canon lens is three times the price.

I suppose ignorance is bliss here for me. I haven't seen anything in the corners of my photos with this lens that I've disliked, except for a bit of vignetting when I'm at 28mm with my thickish polarizer on.

That said, I use this lens mostly because it's got a large aperture, and most often use my wider Sigma for landscapes. So since I use this to mostly isolate subjects from the background, I'm not even looking for corner-to-corner performance. Besides... I thought vignettes were mandatory now, and were considered a feature, not a bug. ;)
12/10/2012 04:32:24 PM · #16
Originally posted by Nuno:

If you're talking in to moving to FF body and you are choosing lenses by your 67mm filters, should you really be moing to fullframe?


Indeed. A D800 is about $3000. If you're going with a single lens solution, the cheapest lens you're going to be able to find that's high enough quality to make that $3000 camera worthwhile is going to be more than $1000. An excellent quality 77mm polarizer can be had for less than $200. I personally wouldn't worry much about the filters. Depending on where and when you buy the camera and lens, you might be able to get them to throw in a filter or two, or at least give you a good discount.
12/10/2012 04:37:58 PM · #17
Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

While the Tamron 28-75 enjoys high praise on crop sensors, many complain of it falling apart in the corners on fx. I've only used it a smidge on my F100 and didn't really stare at it with a loupe, so I can't say. There are others who think it's up to the task, though. Two users on the sides of the divide would be ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music and ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bohemka. Both have used the lens on fx and would likely be more than willing to give you some insight.

I'm in the camp that says "Don't get it!" for full frame use. It was a wonderful lens on the crop sensor, major bang-for-the-buck, but it's not too hot at the edges in full frame work, especially landscapes at the wide end. For a while ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' PennyClick used it on her 7D after I went FF, but even she eventually went over to the Canon 24-105mm IS, and we gave the Tamron to her sister...


To be fair that canon lens is three times the price.

I suppose ignorance is bliss here for me. I haven't seen anything in the corners of my photos with this lens that I've disliked, except for a bit of vignetting when I'm at 28mm with my thickish polarizer on.

That said, I use this lens mostly because it's got a large aperture, and most often use my wider Sigma for landscapes. So since I use this to mostly isolate subjects from the background, I'm not even looking for corner-to-corner performance. Besides... I thought vignettes were mandatory now, and were considered a feature, not a bug. ;)


Agreed. I'm still using the Tamron 28-75 on my D800. I may eventually buy something better, but I haven't actually noticed a problem yet. Certainly not enough of a problem to buy a lens that's 3x the price and 2.5x the weight. Of course, if I'm taking wide landscapes, I use my Nikon 17-35, so that may be why I'm not seeing problems.

edit to say that given the mixed reviews on this lens at FF, if I didn't already have it, I probably wouldn't buy it for a full frame camera.


Message edited by author 2012-12-10 16:39:20.
12/10/2012 04:50:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by Ann:

Agreed. I'm still using the Tamron 28-75 on my D800. I may eventually buy something better, but I haven't actually noticed a problem yet. Certainly not enough of a problem to buy a lens that's 3x the price and 2.5x the weight. Of course, if I'm taking wide landscapes, I use my Nikon 17-35, so that may be why I'm not seeing problems.

edit to say that given the mixed reviews on this lens at FF, if I didn't already have it, I probably wouldn't buy it for a full frame camera.

It's not a "problem", exactly. You're quite right that a lot of the time it wouldn't be an issue. But when it DOES matter, it matters quite a lot. My point of view is, the reason I'm investing in FF bodies in the first place is for their stunning acuity and detail, and it just bugged the heck out of me that the Tamron was a little "off" as I got away from center. To ME (and I'm a perfectionist that way, having come via the large-format, hyper-sharp route) the degradation was significant enough that I almost never USED the lens anymore, so I had quite a hole in my range for a while. I had the 17-40mm and then the 70-200mm, with nothing in between. Hence the 24-105mm, which quickly became my workhorse.

12/10/2012 05:33:16 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Ann:

Agreed. I'm still using the Tamron 28-75 on my D800. I may eventually buy something better, but I haven't actually noticed a problem yet. Certainly not enough of a problem to buy a lens that's 3x the price and 2.5x the weight. Of course, if I'm taking wide landscapes, I use my Nikon 17-35, so that may be why I'm not seeing problems.

edit to say that given the mixed reviews on this lens at FF, if I didn't already have it, I probably wouldn't buy it for a full frame camera.

It's not a "problem", exactly. You're quite right that a lot of the time it wouldn't be an issue. But when it DOES matter, it matters quite a lot. My point of view is, the reason I'm investing in FF bodies in the first place is for their stunning acuity and detail, and it just bugged the heck out of me that the Tamron was a little "off" as I got away from center. To ME (and I'm a perfectionist that way, having come via the large-format, hyper-sharp route) the degradation was significant enough that I almost never USED the lens anymore, so I had quite a hole in my range for a while. I had the 17-40mm and then the 70-200mm, with nothing in between. Hence the 24-105mm, which quickly became my workhorse.


Yup. I can understand that totally. I replaced my Tokina 12-24 for the same reason, even though theoretically, it worked on FF down to 18mm just fine, and it was tack sharp on my old camera. The left side of the image was always a little "off." With the 28-75, though, I just haven't noticed anything that untoward....yet. It may be because I haven't used it enough yet, and it may be because I don't often do the kind of shooting that requires good edge acuity at that focal length. I suspect the latter. At the moment, I really want the 28-75 to work, because I'm going to Africa next summer, and there are strict weight limits for the trip, coming both from the tour company and from my back. The lenses in the Nikon lineup that would be sensible full-frame replacements for the 28-75 are damn heavy.
12/11/2012 12:04:14 AM · #20
Originally posted by Nuno:

If you're talking in to moving to FF body and you are choosing lenses by your 67mm filters, should you really be moing to fullframe?


Yes.
12/11/2012 03:35:59 AM · #21
Originally posted by Nuno:

If you're talking in to moving to FF body and you are choosing lenses by your 67mm filters, should you really be moing to fullframe?


I could be wrong but I think he just wanted to see what his options were, if there were any stellar 67mm lenses to look into or if he should just accept the loss. I think we jumped on him a bit with the assumption that he is so caught up on the filter that he wouldn't look at other options. Do any of you enjoy making your existing gear worthless?
12/11/2012 06:16:20 AM · #22
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Do any of you enjoy making your existing gear worthless?

Yeah!

I love it that I haven't touched my D7000 since I got my D600!......8~)
12/11/2012 01:01:10 PM · #23
If you really want to use that 67mm filter, the new Nikon 70-200 f/4 uses 67mm filters. You'd need a second lens for the shorter focal lengths, however.
12/12/2012 01:43:49 AM · #24
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Nuno:

If you're talking in to moving to FF body and you are choosing lenses by your 67mm filters, should you really be moing to fullframe?


I could be wrong but I think he just wanted to see what his options were, if there were any stellar 67mm lenses to look into or if he should just accept the loss. I think we jumped on him a bit with the assumption that he is so caught up on the filter that he wouldn't look at other options. Do any of you enjoy making your existing gear worthless?


yup
12/12/2012 01:45:48 AM · #25
thanks for the advice dudes. i guess theres not really any nice wide angle 67mm lenses .
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/13/2020 07:43:58 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/13/2020 07:43:58 AM EDT.