Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Lens recommendations


discreetphoton 10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 7:52AM
Got that combination too, and totally agree Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sitan1 6 766 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 10:42AM

Quote:I use the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 on my D800 and it is a sensational lens. I wouldn't hesitate in buying more Tamron lenses.


I'm looking at this lens for my Nikon D7100, heard nothing but good reviews about it, just worried about loosing the wider angle compared to my Nikon 16-85, still have the Sigma 10-20 if I need to go wider I suppose.
Should I shouldn't I should I shouldn't I
Oh what to do Tongue
discreetphoton 10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 12:04PM
You should Smile have a look at Totally Tamron. There's links on the right that will take you to my blog pages on it. It's a chunky monkey, but optically it's an absolute belter.
Chant57 Plus
9 395 3 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 12:16PM
On a crop sensor camera - I would heartily recommend the Tamron 18-270 Dii VC PZD.
Super lens - great price and a very capable lens
sitan1 6 766 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 1:23PM

Quote:On a crop sensor camera - I would heartily recommend the Tamron 18-270 Dii VC PZD.
Super lens - great price and a very capable lens



I wanted the 24-70 as I wanted to go full frame in the future.
discreetphoton 10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 1:30PM
In that case, definitely the 24-70. It may feel like a loss in the short term at the wide end, but 36-105 is still a useful equivalent, and when you do move onto full frame, it will really come into its own. The VC really makes all the difference when compared against the competitors.
sitan1 6 766 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 2:01PM
Great advice thanks
2 Feb 2014 7:23AM

Quote: Which is the reason why I suggested the 18-300mm which is optically correct for a DX

I am sorry to disagree - by a full 100% about your misunderstanding of FX lenses on DX bodies.
FX lenses work better on DX bodies than on FX bodies Smile
The reason is that all lenses are less good in the corners than the centre and many corner issues of an FX lens get cropped out on a DX body.
The OP has not said what future plans are, but as the 50mm f1.8 D does not AF with a D3000 I can understand a very wide range zoom providing AF at 50 mm being on the short list.
There are several versions of the Nikon 70-300. The current VR version is easily the best performer.
discreetphoton 10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
2 Feb 2014 7:59AM
That's a bit of an assumption. DX lenses are, by design, intended for use on a DX camera (size, cost and weight optimised), and I'm sure Janeez understand that. Regardless of how larger lenses perform on the same camera, the statement you refer to is correct, given the advantage of the wider glass.
I think it's fair to say that most people understand the various trade-offs when making an informed decision to pair a lens with a given camera. It's not really fair to undermine the entire argument by saying "I am sorry to disagree - by a full 100% about your misunderstanding of FX lenses on DX bodies", since the lens choices referred to in the OP indicate that a versatile focal range and a budget has at least some bearing on the choice over the best possible quality.
2 Feb 2014 7:12PM

Quote:
I think it's fair to say that most people understand the various trade-offs when making an informed decision to pair a lens with a given camera.


I agree.
What I was commenting on was your words "which is optical correct for DX"
If you had said DX lenses are not optimised for FX bodies I would have agreed.
DX and FX lenses are both optimised for DX.
thewilliam 6 5.2k
3 Feb 2014 12:54PM

Quote:
DX and FX lenses are both optimised for DX.



I'd have thought that the designer has to make some optical compromises with very wide angle lenses such as the Nikon 14-24mm for FX. Designing a DX lens of the same focal length is far less stringent so I'd expect the DX lens to perform better. Can one "optimise" a lens for two very different formats?

One of the folk from Zeiss told me that, in very approximate terms, the Zeiss ZF lenses perform about 100 lppm better than the Hasselbald lenses of the same focal length because the angle of view is narrower. Then the Zeiss ZM lenses are better than ZF by a similar margin because the ZM lenses don't need to be designed with space for the reflex mirror.

In optics, you don't get owt for nowt!
mikehit Plus
5 7.8k 12 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2014 2:03PM

Quote:Designing a DX lens of the same focal length is far less stringent so I'd expect the DX lens to perform better.


But as Len said, with the FX lens on DX body you are only using the central part of the image circle so you are omitting the outer parts which is where most distortion occurs.
I have not yet seen anything to suggest that a made-for-APS-C lens is intrinsically better than a made-for-FF lens: to take Canon as an example, the 17-55 f2.8 is said to be as close to 'L' glass as an APS-C lens can be and it costs 700. By the logic you suggest, I would expect that break to be much cheaper down the line.
ColleenA Plus
2 295 3 Australia
20 Mar 2014 5:22AM

Quote:I maintain that every DX owner should have a Tamron 18-270 Smile

I have had my Tamron for 9 months, it goes all over the world with me, is light and very reliable...an excellent buy
gaelldew 8 311 United Kingdom
20 Mar 2014 11:28AM

Quote:I maintain that every DX owner should have a Tamron 18-270 Smile
I have had my Tamron for 9 months, it goes all over the world with me, is light and very reliable...an excellent buy



Totally agree mine stays on most of the time, only comes off when taking Macro ( with my Tamron 90mm ) another excellent lens.
20 Mar 2014 5:56PM

Quote:
I'd have thought that the designer has to make some optical compromises with very wide angle lenses such as the Nikon 14-24mm for FX. Designing a DX lens of the same focal length is far less stringent so I'd expect the DX lens to perform better. Can one "optimise" a lens for two very different formats?


The design of the 14-24 had 3 "special" requirements being an image circle large enough to cover FX, f2.8 rather than the slower apertures of equivalent angle of view DX lenses, and to show Canon users this Nikon lens was better than anything in from Canon in the focal length range when introduced in 2008.
DX lenses are simpler (and cheaper for the same resolution level)) to make because the smaller the image circle the easier it is to correct most lens aberrations.
Ideally a DX lens should have a little more resolution than an FX lens as, when making extreme enlargements as a DX image is magnified more the point of "empty" magnification is reached sooner. This is probably why the 17-55 FX is not much cheaper new than the 24-70.
Part off topic when Olympus first launched 4/3 they claimed their 4/3 lenses had about twice the resolution of 24x36 lenses.
Theoretical resolution aside I am satisfied 24 MP DX and a pro grade lens have enough resolution to make a good quality 24 inch wide print. The D800 has the ability to go to at least 30 inches and a high end Hasselblad can get to about 48 inches.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.