Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2042 posts, RR: 10 Posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2862 times:
I am in a big of fix about standard lens for my DSLR. I plan to purchase the D80 body, and not go for kit lens. Just to give you some background, I do mostly aviation and macro photography and already have a lovely Nikkor 75-300 non-VR lens. I have zeroed into choice between 24-120VR and 24-85 f/2.8. Although VR is a great attraction, I have been told that latter being faster of the two, so VR won't be needed. Moreover, 24-85 will suit me well for Macro photography. But, that VR thing keeps ticking in my mind.
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
I have neither of the lenses. However I have the tad bit slower 24-85 f3.5ish version. Though I've never used it for aviation photography, I find it an all around great little travel/messing around in the yard lens.
The following image was taken with the 24-85. Note I'm still a little new to the masking and pasting on a black background technique so please excuse any flaws.
The 24-120 was another option for me. But a lot of the reviews I read said the lens had issues with pincushion. So that kinda steered my towards the 24-85.
Hope this helps.
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Quoting Sluger020889 (Reply 1): The 24-120 was another option for me. But a lot of the reviews I read said the lens had issues with pincushion. So that kinda steered my towards the 24-85.
Weeell,...what can you ask of a lens that has about 50% more reach, in just about the same package!?
Easily fixed in PS too.
I like the 24-120VR, since it's a decent "walk-around"-lens for every-day shooting. I even have a couple of shots on A-net taken with it!
However, since I don't mind distorsion too much, I'm thinking about getting a 18-200VR.
....have seen a lot of good pic's taken with that one.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Lots of rumours around these days concerning new announcements from Nikon, so some of the lens could drop in price.
I use the trusty 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and it's OK, but sometimes I'd need a little extra quality. A 24-70 f/2.8 would be perfect, but it's expensive. I was also looking at the 24-120, but maybe something new will come out in the near future?
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Any specific reasons? I've been thinking of purchasing that lens and I've been on the fence because I've heard a lot of good things and some not so good - mainly the drop in quality due to the very long focal range. Any experiences yourself?
I've only used 2 examples, both were very soft side to side. I shot a full frame airliner side-on the nose and tail would be very very soft. I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something, but if you demand perfection it won't make the grade.
I know others will read this and disagree, that is okay. I am simply sharing my opinons and experiences. If others have seen other results please share them.
I got the 18-200 with my D200 because I knew I could sell the lens for $800. I was not happy with it at all. I missed so many shots with it. Most shots were way too soft. Any shot that was sharp was only sharp in the middle. The closer you got to the edges the worse it got. I sold it and bought the 24-120 Vr and a 10.5 mm f/2.8.
It works well for the price. I can see the difference between it and my 80-200 f/2.8. It is a great compromise between quality and reach. It covers 90% of all situations here in Seattle. I tried to rationalize the 18-200 problems with "It's a settings issue on a new camera." After shooting a week on my D100 with no improvement it went out the door.
Clickhappy is right about Nikon having a hole in their line up. I'm not one for changing lenses out in the field. Go to KBFI and hit the freighters with it all afternoon. If something small comes in and I really want a shot of it then I grab the D100 with the 80-200 and open up on it. It comes down to were you shoot and what kind of range you need.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
I've seen some pretty good shots taken with the 18-200, most of them were not aviation however. The range is good however for various ramp tours where you have to quickly change the gear. Canon however have a 28-300 in their line-up.
I also heard not so good opinions about the 24-120.
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7): I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something,
Which is more or less what I was planning on using it for. Not having to swop lenses in the ski-slopes would be a real treat!
Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 14): Clickhappy is right about Nikon having a hole in their line up.
Last few weeks I've had the opportunity to use a Sigma 50-150 2,8 EX HSM and I must say it's really good.
I'm now seriously considering getting one of those.
....and, also recently, I got myself a Tamron 28-75 2,8. Although not having an internal focusing motor, it moves really fast on the D2X/D1X. It's also very very sharp side-to-side, when stopped down to f/4! Inexpensive too and doesn't weigh half-as-much as the Nikkor 28-70 2,8 AF-S.
I'm really glad I got that one!
10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 57 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
I used the 24-120 for a short time with my D100 and D200 before buying the 28-70 2.8. It's not a bad lens, I liked the focal length coverage but it had a tendency to be soft. Here are a few shots I have on A.net that were shot with the 24-120 in what I found to be the sweet spot f stop range of 8-11.
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 48 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7): I've only used 2 examples, both were very soft side to side. I shot a full frame airliner side-on the nose and tail would be very very soft. I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something, but if you demand perfection it won't make the grade.
Pity I hadn't read your comment before buying the 18-200mm Royal but I will have to persevere and use mainly the wide angle settings with mid range aperture for best results. I think it would have been handy when shooting from the ramp of a Hercules for a quick change of focal length to get in closer when the lads jumped. Just no time to swap lenses keep balance and take photo.
I don't think these lenses are in the same class. However, I think that you have to decide what range you need. Since you have the 75-300 then the f2.8 would be the way to go I would think strictly from the lens quality and sharpness point of view.
Quoting Aseem (Thread starter): I have been told that latter being faster of the two, so VR won't be needed
Well, I don't know who told you that but unless you shoot at f2.8 a lot then I don't think the speed of the lens is going to help you one bit. In most cases you'll probably be shooting within the f5.6+ range. VR will give you a significant advantage in that you can shoot at a higher f-stop in any given lighting situation.
Why? If you know how to use it you can get good results. I'll be the first to admit that below f8 this lens stinks. It is also softer than I like across the range... BUT, I travel a lot and I hated carrying around three lenses to cover wide angle (for digital) all the way to "supper zoom".
I'd suggest that you go back and look at the range in which a lot of your shots are taken. If you find that you shoot a lot in the range from 85 to 120 then you will probably find the 24-85 f2.8 lens to be frustrating because you'll have to switch lenses a lot while shooting in some situations (but that depends on where and what you shoot).