Suggestion mid range high quality lens

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by T.O., Nov 27, 2005.

  1. T.O.

    T.O. Guest

    I need a mid range 24mm to whatever (prefer 24mm on the wide end since this
    is going on a digital camera) high quality zoom and am looking for
    suggestions.
    I don't mind paying pro lens prices, if it's worth it.

    Need something that will produce excellent color and little distortion.
    (product shots for web)

    Nikon camera.

    Thanks
    T.O.
     
    T.O., Nov 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. T.O.

    Jim Guest

    Either the 24-120 or the 28-105 would fit your definition.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Nov 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. T.O.

    Matt Clara Guest

    17-35mm f2.8 afs. But really, for product shots, I'd use fixed focal
    lengths, and the old Nikon Ai-S lenses go for a song anymore. The 24mm f2.8
    is an excellent lens, and the 28mm f2.8 is even better (sharper and more
    well corrected).
     
    Matt Clara, Nov 27, 2005
    #3
  4. T.O.

    uw wayne Guest

    Yes Matt but for his application he could do nicely with the 18-35
    3.5-4.5 for a ton less $$$.
     
    uw wayne, Nov 27, 2005
    #4
  5. T.O.

    Tony Polson Guest


    No, neither of these fits the OP's definition.

    The 24-120mm suffers from severe distortion, and the 28-105mm suffers
    from noticeable vignetting at the 28mm end, which in any case isn't
    wide enough. The OP clearly stated a need for 24mm.

    I would recommend the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor, available used at
    surprisingly reasonable prices.

    The 20-35mm f/2.8 was discontinued in favour of the 17-35mm, but it
    remains a remarkable optic, one of the best wide angle zoom lenses
    ever made. It delivers resolution and contrast to match any of the
    f/2.8 fixed focal length Nikkors in the 20-35mm range, except the 28mm
    f/2.8 AF-D (only the AF-D 28mm is worth considering) and its
    distortion is negligible. On a DSLR it is a useful (equivalent)
    30-52.5mm zoom.

    It is advisable to try before you buy, because a small proportion of
    these lenses suffered from chromatic aberration that gave visible
    colour fringing. I owned two examples, neither of which had this
    problem, but it is best to check. If buying by mail order, or from
    eBay, ensure the seller has a good returns policy.

    The 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S Nikkor may also be worth considering. I
    haven't had the opportunity to test one, but have heard very good
    reports. The focal length range is exceptionally useful, being
    equivalent to 25.5-82.5mm on a 35mm film camera. It is also very good
    value for money. Once again, try before you buy or buy from a seller
    with a good returns policy.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 27, 2005
    #5
  6. T.O.

    T.O. Guest

    Thanks. I have the 17-35 f2.8. Awesome lens. I was trying find something
    that would have just a bit more reach--when needed--so I could back off a
    bit.
    Any comments on the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0? Anyone notice any distortion at
    the wider end.

    I'm shooting fabric and sometimes the fabric has lines, squares, rectangles,
    etc. It wouldn't look good to have a round square!

    I wouldn't be opposed to a third party lens either.

    Thanks all.
    T.O. Galloway
     
    T.O., Nov 28, 2005
    #6
  7. T.O.

    Matt Clara Guest

    The 18-35 is not as well corrected as the 17-35mm, but you're right, for the
    web it's overkill. Still, he said he wanted a pro lens...
     
    Matt Clara, Nov 28, 2005
    #7
  8. T.O.

    Tony Polson Guest

    You're welcome.
    OK, understood.
    It's a horrible lens. Distortion is severe - barrel at the wide end,
    pincushion at the tele end. Unsharp unless well stopped down.

    There's a later version, the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S which has better
    optics and Silent Wave Motor focusing. The distortion is
    significantly less but it is still there.
    You are unlikely to find a better lens in a third party brand. Maybe
    you could follow Matt Clara's suggestion, and buy fixed focal length
    Nikkors?

    The 24mm f/2.8 (all versions) and the 28mm f/2.8 AF-D (only the D
    version) are optically excellent in every way. The 35mm f/2 has low
    distortion, as do both the 50mm AF lenses (f/1.4, f/1.8) which are
    also extremely sharp.

    In zooms, the 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S is optically excellent, and you could
    supplement this with a 24mm fixed focal length lens.

    But I come back to my earlier suggestion of the 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S
    Nikkor. You might like to read these reviews, from Thom Hogan and
    Bjørn Rørslett, both of whom are respected reviewers of Nikon gear:

    http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm#autofocus
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G

    Both reviews mention distortion. Only you will know how much of this
    is acceptable for your work, but the 17-55mm f/2.8G distorts far less
    than both 24-85mm versions - and both 24-120mm versions too.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 28, 2005
    #8
  9. T.O.

    Tony Polson Guest

    The OP specifically mentioned a need for low distortion. This lens
    has horrible distortion, plus it isn't especially sharp.

    Anyone considering purchasing the 18-35mm Nikkor should also consider
    the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which has better sharpness and much
    lower distortion and costs a fraction of the price of the Nikkor.
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 28, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.