Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 594536" data-attributes="member: 12496">I have the three Nikon f/2.8 lenses, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-120.  They are simply fantastic (but cost a small fortune).  I imagine the Tamron is also very good, but have not used them, so no comment other than Nikon lenses certainly are premium price.I have other lenses too, like the Nikon 24-120mm f/4, which is also very good.  Actually, I take only the f/4 lens on trips (for a light load to carry), but around home, the f/2.8s get all the use. The actual difference might be more imagined than perceived. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Here's a sample, 70-200 mm at f/8 130mm, as full frame and a 100% crop.<img src="http://www.scantips.com/lights/images/36a.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <img src="http://www.scantips.com/lights/images/36b.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />I don't use f/2.8 much, because I tend to like depth of field (and ISO aids that effort).  But like for flash, it seems to me that the quality f/2.8 lens used stopped down at f/4 is better than the inexpensive f/4 lens wide open.  Other than that they are quality lenses, that's my reason for f/2.8.For a DX body, then 16mm would equate to the same view as 24mm on FX.  DX needs wider than 24mm, 24 would Not be very wide angle on DX.  For DX, I always liked the Nikon 16-85mm, very decent, but it is not f/2.8.One thing that causes zoom quality to suffer is a wide zoom range. 14-24 is about 2x, 24-70 is about 3x, 70-200 is about 3x, 16-85 is about 5x.  Something like 18-200 is 11x, and is simply harder to correct. The smaller zoom ranges can deliver more (in their limited range).</blockquote>

Verification