Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Lens Comparison

  1. #1
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    31,091
    Real Name
    John

    Lens Comparison

    Author didn't spellcheck so you have to assume a bit. Anyone familiar with the lenses and care to comment.

    http://www.cameradebate.com/2012/nik...28-comparison/

  2. #2
    Melkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville,NC
    Posts
    440
    Real Name
    Paul Melkus

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Well I'm sure they are some fine lens but way out of my price range The Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR that I have dose all what I need and without selling one of the kids
    Last edited by Melkus; 30th January 2013 at 09:32 AM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Western MA, USA
    Posts
    396
    Real Name
    Tom

    Re: Lens Comparison

    SLRGear reviewed the f/4 and were not blown away by it on FF cameras. They thought it was decent on DX but too soft in the corners on FF. I see that Tokina is showing a 70-200 f/4 with an ultrasonic motor and their first foray into stabilization. It isn't available for evaluation yet, but I'm anxious to see how it stacks up to Nikon. They haven't announced pricing yet.

  4. #4
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    31,091
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Would you consider renting one for three days for less than $75.00 or feel its not worth the expense?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Western MA, USA
    Posts
    396
    Real Name
    Tom

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowman View Post
    Would you consider renting one for three days for less than $75.00 or feel its not worth the expense?
    Sure, if I had a 3-day project where I'd get good use out of it, I think that would be a terrific way to decide whether I wanted to buy it or not.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Surrey, BC, Canada
    Posts
    301
    Real Name
    Blake

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by tclune View Post
    SLRGear reviewed the f/4 and were not blown away by it on FF cameras. They thought it was decent on DX but too soft in the corners on FF. I see that Tokina is showing a 70-200 f/4 with an ultrasonic motor and their first foray into stabilization. It isn't available for evaluation yet, but I'm anxious to see how it stacks up to Nikon. They haven't announced pricing yet.
    I usually question when reviewers write off a lens because of corner sharpness. My Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is supposed to be very soft towards the edges, but I haven't seen anything to support that, and even then, it's not always relevant to have extreme sharpness in the corners.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Western MA, USA
    Posts
    396
    Real Name
    Tom

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by blakemcguire View Post
    I usually question when reviewers write off a lens because of corner sharpness.
    Perhaps I misled you. SLRGear was not dismissing the lens. The gist of their review was that there were enough IQ issues (complex distortion as well as slightly suboptimal sharpness) with the new lens that it wasn't a no-brainer to save the $1000 and 2 pounds over the f/2.8 lens. OTOH, it was good enough to make it a difficult question of balancing competing priorities. I imagine that renting the lens for a few days and giving it a good real-world tryout might be a very good investment of $75 -- it certainly is a lot cheaper than spending the $1300 and regretting it later, or passing on this lens for the f/2.8 only to find out that the f/4 would have suited your needs and saved your back.

  8. #8
    shreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,328
    Real Name
    Ian

    Re: Lens Comparison

    I will stick with the f2.8 version thanks....

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Posts
    185
    Real Name
    Hero

    Re: Lens Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by tclune View Post
    SLRGear reviewed the f/4 and were not blown away by it on FF cameras.
    Wonder how much of their conclusion has something to do with putting a pro-sumer lens on a pro-body. Personally I think you should put the f2.8 on a body such as a D800(e), not the f4.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    468
    Real Name
    Larry Saideman

    Re: Lens Comparison

    I have rented lenses for trial purposes. But, you might want to ask yourself a few questions first:

    1. Are you willing to afford the 2.8 lens? If not, then any comparison is without value. If so, then you might have to rent both lenses to get a decent comparison.

    2. If you really are choosing between the lenses, which features are most important other than resolution? Resolution, as another member indicated, will probably be sufficient for your needs either way. 2.8/4 is a significant difference particularly if you shoot action or portraiture. Weight can also be a crucial feature. The f 4 model is lighter and is designed to be better for travel (hiking, walk arounds, etc.). It does not even come with a tripod collar. That is an extra expense and narrows the gap if you need one.

    3. Which body are you using? I think Nikon is creating a set of lighter, smaller, slower lenses to match with the D600 and future lighter prosumer ff bodies. Without even renting one, you could bring your camera to a shop and try on both lenses to see which feels right to you.

    I just don't think choosing between lenses is a matter of reading mtf charts. Lenses differ in many ways. Only you can determine which set of features appeals to you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •