Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Lens recommendations

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93443 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2014 - 7:52 AM

Got that combination too, and totally agree Smile

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 Feb 2014 - 7:52 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sitan1
sitan1  5452 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 - 10:42 AM


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
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93443 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2014 - 12:04 PM

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
Chant57 e2 Member 8371 forum postsChant57 vcard United Kingdom3 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2014 - 12:16 PM

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
sitan1  5452 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 - 1:23 PM


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
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93443 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
1 Feb 2014 - 1:30 PM

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.

Last Modified By discreetphoton at 1 Feb 2014 - 1:33 PM
sitan1
sitan1  5452 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Feb 2014 - 2:01 PM

Great advice thanks

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62425 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
2 Feb 2014 - 7:23 AM


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
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93443 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
2 Feb 2014 - 7:59 AM

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.

Last Modified By discreetphoton at 2 Feb 2014 - 8:00 AM
LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62425 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
2 Feb 2014 - 7:12 PM


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
3 Feb 2014 - 12:54 PM


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
mikehit  46103 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
3 Feb 2014 - 2:03 PM


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
ColleenA e2 Member 2155 forum postsColleenA vcard Australia3 Constructive Critique Points
20 Mar 2014 - 5:22 AM


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
gaelldew  7267 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Mar 2014 - 11:28 AM


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.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62425 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
20 Mar 2014 - 5:56 PM


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.

Last Modified By LenShepherd at 20 Mar 2014 - 5:57 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.