Lens Suggestion Needed

W

wrboyle

New member
Hi Everyone,

I just picked up a D800 and a couple of lenses (the 50 and 85 1.8s) and probably going to pick up the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro in the near future. I'm looking for a general use zoom, something in a standard-like range, though I'm happy to entertain others. I'm looking for something to use at the lake or the beach, so a little rain and splash can't be too big of an issue. I know no lens is perfectly sealed, but I want to avoid the more fragile ones if I can. I'm not looking for perfect image quality, I want something that will be versatile and functional. I'll have primes for when I want perfection, this is more about capturing the moment and not worrying about changing lenses, etc. I've read lots of mixed reviews on the 24-120, 28-300 and the 24-85; the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is supposed to be nice and sharp, but I'd rather have a little more reach if I can help it. Thanks for the suggestions and advice!

Regards,
​-W
 
J

jrleo33

Senior Member
I just purchased a 24-85 based on reviews, and was and am really surprised by the overall sharpness, and quality photos this lens delivers. This lens has a rubber seal on the mount, VR, and of course, manual focus override as it is a G lens. The 24-85 is a very good choice for a walk-around lens, and probably on your D800, will really be a performer.
 
W

wrboyle

New member
I like the range and general idea of the 24-120, but I get nervous after reading some reviews. I honestly think there should be a new lens rating system. As opposed to 5 stars or whatever the site uses, it should be rated based on user type and usage. That is, for each lens, they should indicate the type of user within a specific type of use that would be required to notice its shortcomings.

In other words, how good of a photographer do you have to be before you notice the shortcomings of a lens. If you never take your camera off of auto and you do in camera jpeg conversion and you are just shooting a preschool soccer game in good light, you probably won't notice the short comings of a cheap 55-200 lens. Similarly, if you shoot fully manual and do raw conversion in Lightroom and are shooting high speed action, you are going to hate one of the cheap 55-200s. For me (more a techonphile who likes photography than a photographer), I'm generally in aperture/shutter priority (though I drift into manual on occasion) and shoot raw and work in lightroom and my use (for this lens) is "general" photography (probably outdoors in good light). I know a pro shooting a wedding would probably find the 24-120 to have serious flaws, but I wonder how much someone like me would actually notice it...
 
W

wrboyle

New member
I have read and reread the DXO rankings many times over. They helped me pick my primes and I feel like they do a great job of telling me camera/lens potential. But, at the same time, they only provide relative rankings. I don't really understand the difference between a 22 and a 29. I wish their Use Case Scores were populated more consistently, thats what I really want to know. There are lots of subtle things that a single metric wont cover. Looking at their scores, one would probably pick the 85 1.8 over the 105 2 DC as it gets much better scores, but that doesn't mean that for the right use it is a better lens. I'm not looking for top of the line quality (though, I do have minimum standards), you are probably right that a 22 is good enough.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
I'm with Dave W, the 24-70 f2.8 is the best choice, heavier than the primes you mentioned but not having to change lenses is worth a lot also.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
wrboyle said:
I like the range and general idea of the 24-120, but I get nervous after reading some reviews. I honestly think there should be a new lens rating system. As opposed to 5 stars or whatever the site uses, it should be rated based on user type and usage. That is, for each lens, they should indicate the type of user within a specific type of use that would be required to notice its shortcomings.

In other words, how good of a photographer do you have to be before you notice the shortcomings of a lens. If you never take your camera off of auto and you do in camera jpeg conversion and you are just shooting a preschool soccer game in good light, you probably won't notice the short comings of a cheap 55-200 lens. Similarly, if you shoot fully manual and do raw conversion in Lightroom and are shooting high speed action, you are going to hate one of the cheap 55-200s. For me (more a techonphile who likes photography than a photographer), I'm generally in aperture/shutter priority (though I drift into manual on occasion) and shoot raw and work in lightroom and my use (for this lens) is "general" photography (probably outdoors in good light). I know a pro shooting a wedding would probably find the 24-120 to have serious flaws, but I wonder how much someone like me would actually notice it...
Click to expand...

I have the 24-120F4 and as Fish says, it spends a lot of time on my D800. I'm a picky so and so about sharpness and I'm happy with it. Pixel peeping the 24-70 2.8 has the edge but not enough for me to give up the range and low speed shots I get because of the VR. I would only get the 24-70 in addition to rather than instead of this lens.

This is based on having used both.

I recently shot my daughters wedding

http://www.flickr.com/photos/teerecks/sets/72157635556569243/

with this combo and she was happy. If I had the balls to use it for that event then it'll do for most :)
 
C

Cowleystjames

Senior Member
The 24-120 spends most of it's life on my D800e, unless you want to pixel peep, it's a cracker. My 24-70 outclasses it on a massive crop, but you really have to look.
 
J

JDFlood

Senior Member
A lot depends on how you view them now, and how you will view them in ten years. I work with my files on duel 30" 2.5K by 1.9K pixel LCDs, I zoom in and out when processing. There is a big difference between cheap zooms, good zooms and primes. I will be getting a 4K monitor this year and probably a 4K TV (which will I show photos) and my partner and I share photos on our iPads (Also about 2.5K by 1.9K)... and it matters in this environment. If you process on a low res screen, don't zoom in and out, print little ones (8*10) and crop the daylights out of them share 1024 by 680 on the web... and don't plan on following technology as it rapidly changes what we see in the next dozen years, then any of the lenses (although you will not have good light gathering ability from the cheap lens) will do, although you have to ask, why did you buy a D800 then. So, depending on your camp, 24mm-85mm zoom if you don't care, 24-70mm f2.8 if you care, and Primes if you really care. I hardly ever use a zoom, they are not as good a primes, if your lookin' then there is no substitue. JD
 
S

ShootRaw

Senior Member
O.P with the lens you already have.. It only makes sense to me that you should be considering the 70mm-200mm 2.8 lenses...Tamron being the best bang for buck... If you are making $$ as a Pro and can afford Nikkors then get that one...But from all the reviews the Tamron is no slouch..
 
Top