 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
Today Nikon announced that there is a nice new FX zoom that covers the 18-35mm range. Cost is about $750. http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/press_room/press_releases_main.page?Period=New&Quarter=0&SY=0&ID=templatedata\en_GB\news_article\data\BV-NIKKOR-45521-20130129 |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Today Nikon announced that there is a nice new FX zoom that covers the 18-35mm range. Don't understand why they have relaunched this lens, when they have the fixed aperture 16-35 already in the range? |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Maybe it's got something to do with cost. The new launch is almost half the price of the current 16-35mm lens. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
And the fact that it's not fixed aperture. f3.5 - f4.5, which is where the lower price comes from. It's not a 'pro' lens, despite having the FX sensor coverage. On a DX camera it will probably produce even better results across the sensor, even at the edges. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well I think that the plethora of lenses in this range make it very confusing for prospective buyers. Thank goodness I am out of the lens market as I have the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS except for maybe a Nikon 24mm f3.5 PC-E lens or maybe the Samyang equivalent which is due out in March. In fact the Samyang looks like a better option as it is meant to be $1000 so it should be £700 compared with £1400 for the Nikon version. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Squarerigger wrote:Maybe it's got something to do with cost. The new launch is almost half the price of the current 16-35mm lens. I am sure you are right. But that being the case, the easiest way to keep the cost down is to keep the existing lens. OK it was only an AF, not AFS ...but compared to the 17-35 f2.8 there is not IQ difference at f5.6 and smaller! When I bought my 17-35 to replace my 18-35 I had to try 4 examples before I got a 17-35 that was noticeably sharper than the 18-35. I nearly gave up and stuck with the 18-35!! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: Squarerigger wrote:Have you tested the XE1 with 18-55 against the D7000 with 17-35 f2.8 ? If I had a DX camera other than the D300 then I'd do the test. I think I can guess the winner of the test ? It doesnt bear thinking about for me as I am sure my wallet would hurt!! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Eric wrote:Squarerigger wrote:Have you tested the XE1 with 18-55 against the D7000 with 17-35 f2.8 ? Can you? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
On a DX body I doubt there will be any IQ difference for practical purposes. The only real difference is the speed, which I feel is a real factor. I have now two 'slow' wide zooms. 18-35 f3.5-4.5 and more recently the 18-105 f3.5-5.6, which I use on the 3100 almost exclusively. I am often looking for those 'extra gears', of opening the lens up to f2.8 or just above. I was taking some snapshots of my car one evening recently, I tend to take pix at the end of the day. I couldn't get a sharp image due to the low shutter speed I was offered , I tried flash but wasn't happy with the effect. So I HAD to go get the tripod. Some weeks later I realised the VR was turned off, which might have helped but f2.8 would have been my first call because I would have welcomed a shorter DoF I am probably spoiled by having almost all my lenses f2.8 or faster, when I have to use a slower lens in unfavourable conditions it as annoying, to me anyway. I don't like upping the ISO on the 3100 too much because it has a fine resolution and the noise is horrible, worse than the D200 but I feel the D3100 is worth at least a couple of stops over the D200. |
|||||||||
jk
|
You need the D400 !  If it ever arrives. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Maybe... When I got my D1 I considered the DX sensor to be a temporary expedient until Nikon figured how to make a proper size sensor. Well they did that with the excellent D3 or D700. I would rather get a good 'old' D3 than a new very high pixel density D400 12 to 15 Meg pixels are plenty in my opinion. The extra large image files and horrid gritty noise I see in these small pixel images puts me right off. I would rather have larger soft pixels more like film grain. Almost all my lenses are FX capable so I am ready to switch any time if the right body comes along. But affording it might be a different matter...  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Maybe...Wonder how the D600 compares to the D3? |
|||||||||
jk
|
I'd say it is probably a little better in the IQ range and the noise will be a little better as well. The D600 should be a small step up from the D3 so maybe the same as a D3S. It does have newer VLSI technology but maybe the higher MP count will dull the effect of the better electronics. |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
Eric, re: Wonder how the D600 compares to the D3 Grab hold of these two camera's side by side (or any single-digit D camera), and the D600 feels like a wet piece of cardboard. Regards, Gilbert One point for the D600: Nikon has included an Ai-ring for use of older lenses, but otherwise it is aimed and consumers. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Gilbert Sandberg wrote:Eric, Not sure what that makes the D7000, if the D600 is wet cardboard? |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
Eric, I cannot remember ever holding a D7000 camera, sorry. Regards, Gilbert |
|||||||||
richw
|
It's partly because we have got used to the larger heavier form factor but the D600 is a similar size to the old F2 in the film days (before my photographic time but I held one in a used camera store recently). |
|||||||||
Eric
|
richw wrote:It's partly because we have got used to the larger heavier form factor but the D600 is a similar size to the old F2 in the film days (before my photographic time but I held one in a used camera store recently). Good point. I was a Canon shooter pre digital. Before the EOS revolution the bodies were similarly small...unless you added a motor drive . |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |