Nikon 24-70 F2.8 on full frame body

[sfoto100]

It's more of demand and practicability over time. Like what the gurus like to refer to "Last time no AF, also can do sports, no 8fps also can do sports".

The f2.8s have their beauty like the older AI-S. It's not necessary better, but it gets the job done. Like your example. the 20-35 f/2.8 was a gem in the older days, to compare with the 18-xx/xxx glasses these days, it's definitely a hands down comparison. The 17-35 was created for that extra 3mm and to replace the 20-35. Doesn't mean the 20-35 sucks, but demands do grow.

Like what you felt now, am sure the 14mm is tempting as opposed to the 20mm. Similarly, that's what enticing me on it when I already have 17-35.

Also earlier, I did mention, the 3 f/2.8s are a glass (class) on their own, they do not necessarily lose out to primes, but they do not necessarily win every prime. Same as for the 20-35. Primes do not generally win because they are prime.

Take it with a pinch of salt.

i think during film days, sports photographers use bulk back and motor drive and shoot whole roll of 250 frames in one shot?? my fren told me so, too bad i am too poor in the past to try film .. but i think digital did make it easier for more to try photography, but not neccessarily make us better photographers.. ;p

35mm film - Camerapedia

The MF-4 250 Bulk Film Back - Index Page

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I agree.

Some older lenses r real gems and they do perform on D800/E.

So far for zooms I have tried 75-150E and 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai (last version) and am pleased with the IQ. I could fix the 75-150E's zoom slip (not creep - it slips and slams) by using scotch tape on the barrel but not for the 80-200mm f/4.5. And AFD 20-35. Prime 24mm f/2.8 non-Ai converted to Ai, 50mm f/2, AFD 20mm, AFS 85mm f/1.8G.

Next stop 80-200mm f/4 AiS, AF 35mm (non-D), 28mm f/2 Ai, 28mm f/2.8 Ai, 28mm f/3.5 non-Ai converted to Ai, too many others to list.

I really want to try out the good old AFD 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 to see how it goes. At 28mm it is 2/3 stop slower than the f/2.8 lens, at 70mm 1 and 1/3 stop. But boy is it small.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Why do apertures step down as you zoom out on non-fixed aperture lens?

Because of imperfections on the outer portions of the glass. The aperture steps down to ensure light only travels through the designation sweet spots of the glass to achieve the best image quality. As the aperture steps down, light gets lesser, and only through the center of the glass. Where we all know that's the sweet spot.

This I disagree - aperture is the ratio of focal length (light path) to the diameter. So for a fixed hole (aperture) if you build a longer lens the aperture is smaller. So for a fixed size aperture when you zoom out to 70mm the focal length has increased, so the aperture will have to get smaller if the hole size remains the same. So I believe the possible aperture at wider angle is actually larger than f/2.8 but as you zoom out the aperture blades open up to keep the aperture constant.

Same reason why macro lenses aperture gets smaller when focusing in the macro range, or when you use extension tubes - the lens has extended beyond its usual range.

That's why it is cheaper to build variable aperture zoom lens.

It's more of demand and practicability over time. Like what the gurus like to refer to "Last time no AF, also can do sports, no 8fps also can do sports".

The f2.8s have their beauty like the older AI-S. It's not necessary better, but it gets the job done. Like your example. the 20-35 f/2.8 was a gem in the older days, to compare with the 18-xx/xxx glasses these days, it's definitely a hands down comparison. The 17-35 was created for that extra 3mm and to replace the 20-35. Doesn't mean the 20-35 sucks, but demands do grow.

Like what you felt now, am sure the 14mm is tempting as opposed to the 20mm. Similarly, that's what enticing me on it when I already have 17-35.

Also earlier, I did mention, the 3 f/2.8s are a glass (class) on their own, they do not necessarily lose out to primes, but they do not necessarily win every prime. Same as for the 20-35. Primes do not generally win because they are prime.

Take it with a pinch of salt.

Well, I can't say how the 20-35 compare against the 17-35 since my preferred UWA on FX is at the moment 20mm. Not sure if 17-35 is really better, but no need to find out for me, unless I get a loaner to test.

My present position is
... use D300 and 18-70 or 18-135 for those social events that need zoom flexibility. The audience already said woo ah, so sharp, so nice... ;p
... use D800 for serious applications, which means my primes come out to play.

So to me no need for 24-70.

 

[lenslust]

Well said.

Actually is very simple on fixed 2.8 Pro zoom lens is suit for general purpose, even zoom still can achieve f2.8 aperture, but heavy weight and more glass inside and better design.

Honestly ah.. Even same kit lens still doing better then f2.8 fixed pro lens.

In the old timer body has offer 800 ISO max.
When shoot in night time an without tripod & flash so the image has much noise.
What can be solve? Buy the fixed f2.8 zoom Lens to be reduce the using higher ISO.

If using the non fixed aperture lens and can't guaranty your photos is 100% out of focus blur.

For someone still prefer the prime lens over than zoom fixed lens.
Cause in the list still called fast lens.

Why my fixed zoom lens is still staying on dry cabinet and bought for what?

Sometime in the event or AD you may need use on fixed zoom lens to cover the overall bokeh images and pop up in my important object.

But most of time, I'm still prefer prime lens over than zoom lens.

1st Lightweight to allow you long runs.
2nd like 50mm f1.8G stop down on f2.8 the overall IQ is look better than fixed f2.8 midrange zoom lens.
3rd in the some prime may do more well then just keep to usage more prime lens over then fixed f2.8 zoom lens.

Just take about decent technology in FX body such as D600/800 you may slightly press single button to switch over DX or FX crop frame factor.

For example like 28mmG on FX and need do more closeups and simple switch on DX = 42mm that's I'm still staying the same place but on my photo can reach more closeups object that i want.

Fixed aperture zoom lens would be a better and that's still personal preference.

I guess you're not a newbie and don't think to grab fixed aperture zoom lens can be shots the right photos..

Cheers!

I don't get the point of your reply or what context it is driven from or what you are trying to achieve here.

Why is f/2.8 a general purpose thing? In what terms are you comparing a kit lens vs a f/2.8 zoom (like 24-70)? Also there are many ways to overcome the ISO (800) issue like using a tripod.

Using a fixed f/2.8 also cannot guarantee you 100% focused shot. Seriously, what are you trying to prove here? You understand the term fast lens? Why are you comparing the f/2.8 with primes here? We all know they are different league.

Seriously... you need f/2.8 for bokeh and DOF and "pop up in important object"? Are you even aware that aperture is NOT the only factor that contributes to DOF/bokeh?

If you were doing the 'if you can't convince them, confuse them' thingie, you really got me here.

 

[lenslust]

This I disagree - aperture is the ratio of focal length (light path) to the diameter. So for a fixed hole (aperture) if you build a longer lens the aperture is smaller. So for a fixed size aperture when you zoom out to 70mm the focal length has increased, so the aperture will have to get smaller if the hole size remains the same. So I believe the possible aperture at wider angle is actually larger than f/2.8 but as you zoom out the aperture blades open up to keep the aperture constant.

Same reason why macro lenses aperture gets smaller when focusing in the macro range, or when you use extension tubes - the lens has extended beyond its usual range.

That's why it is cheaper to build variable aperture zoom lens.

I do not disagree here, but my explanation does hold some validity as well.

Eg: 18-200mm f/2.8. We know physically, this would probably be like 10KG and 150mm in front element (or larger). The same theory does apply here. It's cheaper to step down, cover up the imperfections on the outer portions of the elements as the zoom extends. Creating perfect elements do take up more precision and costs.

I'd say your explanation holds too.

Well, I can't say how the 20-35 compare against the 17-35 since my preferred UWA on FX is at the moment 20mm. Not sure if 17-35 is really better, but no need to find out for me, unless I get a loaner to test.

My present position is
... use D300 and 18-70 or 18-135 for those social events that need zoom flexibility. The audience already said woo ah, so sharp, so nice... ;p
... use D800 for serious applications, which means my primes come out to play.

So to me no need for 24-70.

What's best for you is whats the best image captured, don't need to be too fixated on owning primes or f/2.8s.

I'd go D300 + 24-140 f/4.

And D800 + 24-70 f/2.8.

Again this is just me. When I shifted from DX to FX, I realised I could no longer use the 17-35 as an event glass and thus my conclusion to get the 24-70 f/2.8.

 

[daredevil123]

Just so everyone is clear... not all primes are good. And not all primes are better than some zoom lenses.

20/2.8 and 24/2.8 are two primes I thought are very under-performing.

 

[rain5533]

I don't get the point of your reply or what context it is driven from or what you are trying to achieve here.

Why is f/2.8 a general purpose thing? In what terms are you comparing a kit lens vs a f/2.8 zoom (like 24-70)? Also there are many ways to overcome the ISO (800) issue like using a tripod.

Using a fixed f/2.8 also cannot guarantee you 100% focused shot. Seriously, what are you trying to prove here? You understand the term fast lens? Why are you comparing the f/2.8 with primes here? We all know they are different league.

Seriously... you need f/2.8 for bokeh and DOF and "pop up in important object"? Are you even aware that aperture is NOT the only factor that contributes to DOF/bokeh?

If you were doing the 'if you can't convince them, confuse them' thingie, you really got me here.

Ok ok you got your point

 

[diediealsomustdive]

i think during film days, sports photographers use bulk back and motor drive and shoot whole roll of 250 frames in one shot?? my fren told me so, too bad i am too poor in the past to try film .. but i think digital did make it easier for more to try photography, but not neccessarily make us better photographers.. ;p

No, film was expensive. Bulk backs were, well, bulky. Every shot has to count, or more or less count. Today you whack 8 fps in 3 sec you get 24 frames. If you do that with film Kodak would not go bankrupt, you will.

In film days it was called... skill. The skill of anticipating the moment, the skill of pre-focusing and follow focus if necessary, manually. And with film to wind through, film motor drives were limited mostly to 5 fps, and guys these days balk at 5 fps, as in only 5 fps. Your "fren" obviously hasn't shot film.

But yes, digital is easier but not necessarily better. But with instant feedback one improves faster, if one learns. I have improved a lot faster with digital compared to my film days. But in film days one has to have very sound fundamentals to shoot correctly as one finds out one's mistake after a few hours or days when the film comes back.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just so everyone is clear... not all primes are good. And not all primes are better than some zoom lenses.

20/2.8 and 24/2.8 are two primes I thought are very under-performing.

Agree not all primes are good. But most primes are good and better than most zooms, on the counts of smaller size, larger aperture and probably lower distortion. But when compared with f/2.8 zooms of cost-no-object design, I think many primes of the past have past their prime.. he he..

Some primes like the 20mm and 24mm I believe are victims of doing good enough designs rather than pushed-to-the-limit design. For example, the 20mm AFD is smaller than 24mm AFD and use only 62mm filter. Whereas the 20-35mm and 17-35mm lenses use 77mm filters with a much larger front element. So light fall off (aka vignette) is so much smaller with these behemoth than the petite 20mm. Also good enough design for film meant light not hitting sensor at right angle, which is demanded by digital sensors.

But when I am not comparing the 20mm will do a good job, and so small as to facilitate easy travel. Still hanging on to it!

Besides, I need a 77mm +4 to use my AFD 20-35 in an underwater rig, while the 20mm goes in without the need for dioptre.

 

[Zaknafein]

Seriously... you need f/2.8 for bokeh and DOF and "pop up in important object"? Are you even aware that aperture is NOT the only factor that contributes to DOF/bokeh?

We are all aware that other factors like FL, distance to subject plays a part in DOF... Maybe hes trying to say that in a certain scenario where these factors are constrain, he "needs f2.8 for bokeh and DOF", then it makes sense. well strictly speaking, bigger aperture should only affect DOF, and not bokeh (as bokeh means the quality of the out of focus areas). Pls correct me if im wrong here, but that has been my understanding all along.

I want to say that, technology is beautiful and it can bring both good and bad. As someone has pointed out, digital has made learning photography possibly much faster/easier/cheaper. technolgy also made clubsnap possible where everyone can share and become a better photographer in 1 way or other. Im thankful that many experienced guys are sharing their knowledge and i myself have learnt a lot in this thread. Lets continue to learn from one another and be nice to all fellow Clubsnappers afterall, we are all here for the same purpose to learn

 

[Ben Ang]

So far for zooms I have tried 75-150E and 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai (last version) and am pleased with the IQ. I could fix the 75-150E's zoom slip (not creep - it slips and slams) by using scotch tape on the barrel but not for the 80-200mm f/4.5. And AFD 20-35. Prime 24mm f/2.8 non-Ai converted to Ai, 50mm f/2, AFD 20mm, AFS 85mm f/1.8G.

Next stop 80-200mm f/4 AiS, AF 35mm (non-D), 28mm f/2 Ai, 28mm f/2.8 Ai, 28mm f/3.5 non-Ai converted to Ai, too many others to list.

I really want to try out the good old AFD 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 to see how it goes. At 28mm it is 2/3 stop slower than the f/2.8 lens, at 70mm 1 and 1/3 stop. But boy is it small.

i ve tried the 28-70 on film and on dx, i'd say its ok.. its sharp, but there's very little 'life' in the images.

as for AIS zooms, try the 50-135 f/3.5 its very, very good. as is the tokina 60-120 2.8 which is actually very small.

Agree not all primes are good. But most primes are good and better than most zooms, on the counts of smaller size, larger aperture and probably lower distortion. But when compared with f/2.8 zooms of cost-no-object design, I think many primes of the past have past their prime.. he he..

you're v right to say the AF-D primes are nothing to shout about. but the AIS and pre ai ones are still v fantastic. the most amazing are the 24/2.8 AIS, 35/2 pre AI, 50 1.2 AIS, 50 1.8 AI, 135 f2, 180 2.8. wanna try the 85 1.4 AIs some day ^^. though once you pass 50mm it seems only the really fast lenses are excellent(but too costly/heavy for me). cos of tt i've gone and modified other mount lenses for 50mm and up.

 

[Cheesecake]

We are all aware that other factors like FL, distance to subject plays a part in DOF... Maybe hes trying to say that in a certain scenario where these factors are constrain, he "needs f2.8 for bokeh and DOF", then it makes sense. well strictly speaking, bigger aperture should only affect DOF, and not bokeh (as bokeh means the quality of the out of focus areas). Pls correct me if im wrong here, but that has been my understanding all along.

there are factors affecting the bokeh, such as number of aperture blades, f-stop when taking the photo (smaller aperture = greater DOF = lesser bokeh as more things are in focus as DOF increases) and of course, the construction of the lens itself, such as a mirror lens renders bokeh differently from a normal lens.

thus, ur understanding of bokeh is not complete.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

i ve tried the 28-70 on film and on dx, i'd say its ok.. its sharp, but there's very little 'life' in the images.

as for AIS zooms, try the 50-135 f/3.5 its very, very good. as is the tokina 60-120 2.8 which is actually very small.


you're v right to say the AF-D primes are nothing to shout about. but the AIS and pre ai ones are still v fantastic. the most amazing are the 24/2.8 AIS, 35/2 pre AI, 50 1.2 AIS, 50 1.8 AI, 135 f2, 180 2.8. wanna try the 85 1.4 AIs some day ^^. though once you pass 50mm it seems only the really fast lenses are excellent(but too costly/heavy for me). cos of tt i've gone and modified other mount lenses for 50mm and up.

I will generally shy away from non-Nikon where feasible, and mod-ing lenses is not quite my cup of tea. I have come across several pieces of AiS 50-135mm but they all had some defects that I could not live with. Still, the approach is to use DX for more casual/events shooting, and FX only when I am seriously doing work.

So far very pleased with the few MF and AF lenses I've tried. Since I don't shoot very often, it will take a long time to round up testing and shooting the lenses.

 

[Zaknafein]

there are factors affecting the bokeh, such as number of aperture blades, f-stop when taking the photo (smaller aperture = greater DOF = lesser bokeh as more things are in focus as DOF increases) and of course, the construction of the lens itself, such as a mirror lens renders bokeh differently from a normal lens.

thus, ur understanding of bokeh is not complete.

hmmm, so can i say that:

f-stop affect the quantity of bokeh

no. of aperture blades and internal lens construction affects quality of bokeh?

 

[daredevil123]

hmmm, so can i say that:

f-stop affect the quantity of bokeh

no. of aperture blades and internal lens construction affects quality of bokeh?

Actually technically speaking, there is no such thing as quantity of bokeh. Bokeh only refers to the "quality" of the blur.

circle of confusion, F-stop, subject distance vs background distance, and focal length affects the amount of depth of field you get.

Bokeh is determined by the number and shape of aperture blades as well as lens design.

 

[Zaknafein]

Actually technically speaking, there is no such thing as quantity of bokeh. Bokeh only refers to the "quality" of the blur.

circle of confusion, F-stop, subject distance vs background distance, and focal length affects the amount of depth of field you get.

Bokeh is determined by the number and shape of aperture blades as well as lens design.

Yes, this is my understanding all these years! But cheesecake had corrected me earlier and it sounded logical too....

Hmmm so which is correct? Im so confused now...

 

[Ben Ang]

Yes, this is my understanding all these years! But cheesecake had corrected me earlier and it sounded logical too....

Hmmm so which is correct? Im so confused now...

it seems your circle of confusion has increased =P

sry, couldn't resist ^^

 

[Cheesecake]

hmmm, so can i say that:

f-stop affect the quantity of bokeh

no. of aperture blades and internal lens construction affects quality of bokeh?

most often, people are only interested in the 'quality' of the bokeh. i'm not sure if there is 'quantity' of bokeh, or is it the right term to use. maybe other CSer/s can help with this.

'quality' of bokeh can be affected by no. of aperture blades, whether the blades are rounded or not, lens construction (mirror, tele, wide, defocus control etc), f-stop (DOF)... etc.

i believe there are other factors not listed out.

 

[Cheesecake]

Yes, this is my understanding all these years! But cheesecake had corrected me earlier and it sounded logical too....

Hmmm so which is correct? Im so confused now...

i think what daredevil had replied is almost identical to mine.


when i said 'lesser bokeh', i am referring to the 'poorer' quality of bokeh, not 'quantity' as bokeh is unlikely to be subjected to amount etc.

 

[Jeremy1]

As what I know, the shape of the bokeh depend on the number of aperture blade ?

What is quality bokeh ?

Thanks.