I have taken the bait...

petemc said:
I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?
Click to expand...

A quick trip to Nikon says yes, probably.... although there is also a 12-24 f2.8 DX - so you think, ah, thats wider....except DX, I think, and this is where it gets confusing, is for cropped framed sensors - both have the gold ring :bang:

Anyway, for the NIkon uses, after some seraching found this

http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=12089&p_created=1100513744&p_sid=tN_PXY1j&p_accessibility=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9OTMmcF9wcm9kcz0wJnBfY2F0cz0yNDEmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0xLjI0MSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PURYIExlbnNlcw**&p_li=&p_topview=1
 
petemc said:
I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?
Click to expand...

That's the one. Came out alongside the new 24-70 2.8 to partner the D3. Is apparently a fantastic lens from the reviews I've seen. Only thing is it has a 'bulbous' front element so you can't use filters, which really puts me off.
 
petemc said:
Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.
Click to expand...

:eek: i haven't found it stupid or pointless. works for me.

Sometimes, i think big companys throw lots of spiel at you to confuse you, therefore tricking some people into thinking as it is confusing, it must be good, or something like that anyways.
 
As a Nikon user I feel that canon have a better marketing strategy, but I class any Nikon lens with a aperture of f2.8 or faster as PRO (with the exception of the long telephotos as making a 600mm F2.8 would be rather big and heavy and super expensive)
 
I think the price of a lens also gives a clue to whether or not it's a pro lens.
 
kmlc said:
:eek: i haven't found it stupid or pointless. works for me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I could get good shots with it too but when you compare it to the 24-70 f/2.8 its a pointless lens. Having an extra 34mm won't help in low light and while it has IS its no substitute for f/2.8 which produces a nicer depth of field. Ultimately it comes down to f/2.8 vs f/4 and I'd pick f/2.8 every time.
 
petemc said:
I'm sure I could get good shots with it too but when you compare it to the 24-70 f/2.8 its a pointless lens. Having an extra 34mm won't help in low light and while it has IS its no substitute for f/2.8 which produces a nicer depth of field. Ultimately it comes down to f/2.8 vs f/4 and I'd pick f/2.8 every time.
Click to expand...

Im sure, but going by how much i could afford etc its def better than nout! :)
 
Snake Man said:
I think the price of a lens also gives a clue to whether or not it's a pro lens.
Click to expand...
OK Snake, I'll take the bait. Care to look at post #35 and tell me whether I bought one "pro" lens or two?
 
petemc said:
Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.
Click to expand...

Not quite true however I acknowledge the reasoning behind the sentiment Pete.

It is just a "specialised" lens (not specialist). This lens is very appealing to me for my aerial photography as it would mean I would have a larger working range without changing lens (awkward in flight).

f2.8 is not useful for aerial work but an assurance of good clarity and the trademark L series edge and colour contrast is.

Despite this I have still not bought it! :lol:
 
Yeah but what happens when you want a nice image of a passing police helicopter a f/2.8? :p
 
Does it really matter what lens you use, pro or non pro if your happy with the results then stick with the lenses you have.For example, I bought the 70-200 2.8 whilst already owning the 80-400 4-5.6, the 80-400 is considered a non pro lens, yet it gets a helluva a lot more use than the 70-200.Why? simply because I like the images better from that lens. The 2.8 is useful for certain situations certainly and I would not say that I feel it was a waste of money.
 
I agree fracster: if you are happy with the images it produces, then it shouldnt matter.
I ahve seen some amazing stuff form some 'cheaper' lens'
 
petemc said:
Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.
Click to expand...

No Pete, it's just a stupid and pointless comment.
icon_rolleyes.gif


There are times that I have need for a short tele to use in low light without flash or tripod. Whilst the f2.8 might be the better quality lens in terms of IQ at a given focal length, it's sod all use to me if I need a 100mm lens I can shoot at with a Tv of an 1/8 of a second.
 
we're going off topic folks :)
 
StewartR said:
That's exactly how I feel.

Of course you can look at the price, but that's always a bit iffy. For example, last week I bought (a) an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR for £1120; and (b) an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED (or it might be IF-ED) for £590. Is (a) better? Yes, very probably. Is it twice as good? Almost certainly not. Did I get a great bargain on (b)? I might have. But here's the killer ... Was (b) the "pro" version before (a) came out? How can I tell?

Yes, some people say that the gold ring denotes the "pro" range. So if they're right, when I unpack the boxes I'll find out what I've bought. But how can they be sure? Nikon don't say anything about gold rings in their marketing. And there seems to be no correlation between the existence of gold rings and any particular combination of letters in the nomenclature.

Here's a final thought. That lens I bought is an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. OK, "AF-S" and "G" tell me something about which cameras it's compatible with, and "VR" tells me about some important functionality. But "IF-ED" is pointless techno-geekery. Why not tell me something about the quality of the lens instead? Obviously "L" is taken, but there are a few letters left in the alphabet that they don't use yet...
Click to expand...

The AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED lens was the fastest telephoto lens of its time, and was Nikons flagship model. They then created an AF-S version to up autofocus speeds, but this was soon discontinued and replaced with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED VR. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens nikon have made, which is why its still available to buy today. They are both excellent in their own right.

The 80-200 is sharper and is smaller, but the 70-200 offers faster autofocus (not a lot of difference on a probody) and VR. IF stands for internal focus, and ED is a type of high spec coated glass used in the lens.

FX is the full frame line of Nikon DSLR's, and DX are the cropped sensor bodies. Any lens with DX written on it, is designed specifically for cropped sensor. Anything without DX will work on any Film, cropped sensor or full frame camera. Nikon currently only have one full frame camera atm obviously, which is the D3. It does have a feature which allows you to use DX lens at 6mp.

"D" range lenses are compatitable with the 3D matrix metering system. "G" range lenses do not have a manual apature ring, so are incompatible with some older generation cameras, even though the mount is the same.


EdinburghGary said:
Nikon? Erm...put it this way if I had a grand to spare and I wanted a cracking pro wide angle for a D3 per say, I wouldn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

Its simple, the 12-24 f/4 is DX, so its designed for cropped sensor cameras. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is not DX so it will work on FF cameras. :)
 
dazzajl said:
No Pete, it's just a stupid and pointless comment.
icon_rolleyes.gif


There are times that I have need for a short tele to use in low light without flash or tripod. Whilst the f2.8 might be the better quality lens in terms of IQ at a given focal length, it's sod all use to me if I need a 100mm lens I can shoot at with a Tv of an 1/8 of a second.
Click to expand...

Well that's me told. I'll sell my f/2.8 now and buy a lens that's won't help me get the pics I want. :p lighten up dude. Its sunny. Make photos not war.
 
petemc said:
Well that's me told.
Click to expand...

If only eh. :p;):lol:

Don't worry, I'm light and I have been out on the sun most of the day making images. :D

You did go on to prove my point rather nicely though.

The 24-105 wouldn't get the job done for you. Is it really so hard to accept that your f2.8 wouldn't cut it for some others? :)

I'll happily accept that a ferrari IS a better car than an old volvo estate..... but not when you want to move a sofa it's not. :thumbs:
 
dazzajl said:
I'll happily accept that a ferrari IS a better car than an old volvo estate.....
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to spare parts cost.....:eek:
 
One of the problems here is that you are not really comparing like with like. It's the camera system that's producing the result, not the lens on it's own. yes you can look at MTF figures and try to determine which lens is better, but you can only really compare them when they are on the same camera.

If someone is shooting Nikon and gets a good picture, fine, as a Canon user I really don't have any problem with that. I went down the Canon route because the camera "felt" better to me. Other people I know would have gone the Nikon route.

I've even got some friend who have Nikons:lol::lol::lol:
 
Why do these threads always have to degenerate into pointless and childish Canon vs Nikon debates? Why can't we all just accept that they're both very good systems? There was an interesting discussion going on here a while ago, but it's just got buried amongst all the mud-slinging.
 
The other bit of the question Gary was price. I don't know about the smaller lenses, but I costed up moving to Nikon and the 500 f/4 was significantly more expensive than the Canon one.

I think it is swings and roundabouts. In Norway recently, I was using my 500 f/4 on a 1d MK II. The guy I was travelling with was using a 400 f/2.8 on a D2x. We both had similar fields of view, but he had an extra stop of light. Probably significant considering how dark it was. Also, the Nikon 400/2.8 weighed about the same as my Canon 500/4 whereas the Canon 400/2.8 is about 2 kg heavier. This is very significant if you are travelling and occaisionally wanting to hand hold.

Quality wise, I reckon in real life they are very similar. The only reason I use Canon is that I started on Canon when I went autofocus in 1998 - before that I had an OM4Ti but Olympus weren't doing DSLRs at the time.
 
grumpybadger said:
Quality wise, I reckon in real life they are very similar. The only reason I use Canon is that I started on Canon when I went autofocus in 1998
Click to expand...

I think this is pretty much the crux of why one or the other, its just the way the cards fall.:thumbs:

I know the ins and outs of Nikon, I dont find it complicated because thats what I shoot, I daresay if I'd have shot Canon I'd make it my business to know what all that crap means.
As it is, all the talk of eos/is/efs/usm/Learner glass and the like, doesn't mean a damn thing to me at all...not a clue, but I do understand specs which is more important than any pre-fix lettering
Anybody looking for pro glass will know what they are looking for without a "pro range" platinum royal seal of approval.
I do know theres nothing to choose between them, and anybody who says there is, either doesn't really know or is market brainwashed.
There are togs like that in both camps, its an insecurity thing.
Marketing ?.....I like it as it is, without the big sell "your nothin without Z glass":lol:
 
Allelujiah.......:thumbs:
 
Nikon have definately missed the boat in their marketing.

Personally I think you friend is an idot - photographs are made by the photographer and not the kit, just look at the kit Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams used. Personally I'd ignore the comments and get on with producing better photographs than him, that way he'll soon shut up and go and buy a Nikon (after all the camera took the photo :cuckoo:).

But as you asked for a comeback have you tried this one?

Remember that it's the Lenses that actually make the image and in film days the lens on the camera was the only difference in image quality. Historically Studio and Wedding togs used Nikon and sports and news togs used Canon, the reason being was that the Canon had faster motor drive speeds (10fps on EOS 1V, compared to 8fps on Nikon F5) and this ensured they get the shot (what they got paid for). When speed isn't such an issue the factor the Pro chose Nikon, why? Well might this have something to do with the quality of the lenses?

With digital cameras the main difference in image quality comes from the sensors and as Canon were far in advance of Nikon in the early days many Togs switched from Nikon to Canon hence the trend does not continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top