careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
Er...am I the only one who thinks of the 24-70mm as a largely useless zoom range? I will rent one for snapping pics at friends' weddings, but that's about it.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Do you mean on FX or DX bodies?
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
I use the 24-70mm about 50% of the time, so it is hardly useless, at least on a 35mm frame camera. On DX, I wouldn't use it, I'd grab a 17-55mm F2.8 for that. I know a lot of people don't like using mid range zooms, I just don't happen to be one of those people. I don't like working with super wide angle lenses, too much distortion, and cannot afford super long (more expensive than the 300mm F4 + TC combo). The least used lens I own is the 50mm F1.8G, even though I shoot at 50mm often, but with the 24-70mm.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Personally, I think the lens can be useful on both DX and FX.
On the smaller sensor, a 36-105 equivalent is not too far off what used to be the walk around lens not so long ago. On FX, the 24-36 part of the range is undoubtedly useful. For me, I think the hardest range to shoot well can be the 50-70 range - this normal to slight tele range is very subtle, so you can't can't count on wide or compressed perspectives to add interest in the way you do with a 17-35 or a 135, for example. If I were a master of this range, I'd be really happy, I'm not, so I practice. ......................................... |
quote |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A small town near Wolfsburg, Germany
|
Quote:
Currently I use a Arca-Swiss compatible variant of the R-strap, made by a user of a local photo forum. My photos @ flickr The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -- Benjamin Franklin |
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
It is simply a matter of shooting style. For example, I don't see much need to get the 70-200mm F2.8, since I have the 300mm prime. That said, I have thought about switching the 300mm for the 70-200mm.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Hey Eugene, how do you rate the performance of the 17-35 across the full frame? These days folks rave over the 14-24, but I believe the 17-35 was considered best of breed until recently. The only worrisome thing I've ever read about it are that the focus motors on some gave out prematurely...
......................................... |
quote |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
It's probably just another example of an overblown web reaction. The 17-35 and 70-200 do make a nice two lens kit, particularly the new 70-200 VR2, and precisely for the reason it's most often marked down - its focus breathing. I've never used it, but reports and test photos show a couple of interesting things that might be very useful. First, its actually a 70 at the wide end, while the VR1 seems closer to 80. Second, at close focus, less than 16 ft, it really widens out a lot - which could be useful if like me you tend to wander into the action.
I have used my VR1 on a borrowed D700, and I liked the combination enough to want a full frame body (hopefully in the new year). I'm not bothered by the corners. Where I use it most of the time, on DX, they're a non issue, but I'm used to the lens being very long, and tend to use it only in larger spaces in the 70-135 range (effective 105/120-200 equivalent) Focal length comparison tool that might be useful for some people: http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/learnin...comparison.php ......................................... |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Yah I've used a 17-35 on both a D700 and D60, and I'd say it might gain a bit of sharpness stopping it down, but it's still very good wide open. Although, I have no idea about the corner performance, I don't tend to take photos where the corners matter. The one I used is pretty old, and the motor does squeak a bit sometimes, but so far no actual problems with the focus mechanism.
Unibody, 17 inch, 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, 320 GB + 64GB SSD (No DVD), Snow Leopard Pismo, 400 MHz, 1 GB, 40 GB, Panther Graphite Clamshell iBook, 466 MHz, 576 MB, 30 GB, Panther, 1024x768 screen |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A small town near Wolfsburg, Germany
|
Quote:
I have no experience with 17-35 myself, but I like my results of my 16-35. Personally, I find the VR quite useful for situations when a tripod is not an option (see the comments from Michael Weber). My photos @ flickr The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -- Benjamin Franklin |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I find it weird that people will argue the merits of an f/4 VR design on a 16-35, and then prefer an f/2.8 non VR design on a 24-70. His reasons are all valid, sharp buildings and landscapes on slow exposures, stopped down. But would you also want to sometimes make sharp stopped down images in the 24-70 range which is a tad longer and more susceptible to shake?
......................................... |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
It is a tough call. There is a lens in the 24-70mm range that is F4 and has VR... the 24-120mm F4 VR... problem solved.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
The key would be to mix VR into a fast aperture lens. I'm not looking for it to allow insane shutter speeds, just enough stability to help erase the effect of tired/shaky hands.
......................................... |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Have you seen Joe McNally's video on ways to help stabilize your shots? It involves resting the camera on your shoulder, a quick search on youtube will bring it up, and you can get shots off at 1/20s without VR. Of course it only works if you have a battery grip on the camera.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I noticed something the other day when I was taking pictures of some action and I had a light lens (50mm f/1.8) on the D7000.
I was in a relatively fast moving scenario, I was tired, and my pulse was a little elevated. In some ways I had more trouble hand-holding that light of rig - it was too light! I could feel myself squeezing the shutter too hard for that camera combination. Maybe I was just a lot more comfortable with the D300 plus Sigma f/2.8 combination. On inspection, the images don't seem blurry, but I was really moving the camera around more than I wanted to, or would have with something heavier. Weird, because in my first use of the 50+D7000 I was so impressed with its lightness. Maybe I've just developed a ham-fistedness from heaving heavy cameras around? ......................................... |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Question for Nikon 24-70 owners and or the mechanically inclined.
Look at this link: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-02...LensRobustness I talked to a friend the other day about machining a lens collar for the 24-70. I suggested turning the inside of an aluminium tube to match the slope of the lens. It would have to be a very thin piece affixed to the lens, and while the inner sleeve matches the lens, the outer sleeve is flat with a small groove to which another machined piece, a collar, gets attached. Bingo, rotating 24-70 collar. The problem I anticipated was that the whole assembly would need to be very thin to clear pentaprism and/or pop-up flash protrusions on Nikon's camera bodies. However, what I didn't anticipate looking at the lens, and only found by accident looking up any DIY efforts, was that Nikon (quite likely) purposely sloped the outer barrel to prevent any such application. The seam that's shown split open in the link is not simply outer casing for the zoom ring to meet the barrel, as I thought it, rather it's a join of two pieces of the lens. There's so little level (straight cylindrical) purchase on the shoulder of that piece that it's probably not a good idea to subject it to any torque, twist or compression that might crack the bond - which I'm guessing is a combination of cement, some sort geometric fit, and a set screw or two? It almost seems like there's some modularity built in to the rear of the lens assembly, like another mount could be swapped in if something ever changed in the future... I have a plan b which shouldn't foul anything, but no time to explain it, just yet... ......................................... Last edited by Matsu : 2011-12-17 at 17:52. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
That does look like an extreme case, where the lens came apart. Nikon does not say that lenses will operate in extreme (under -10ºC or over 45ºC) conditions. On the other hand I've read reports of people using that same gear in Antarctica, and having no trouble at all. Like anything else, there are variances in production, especially when something is made by hand.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
The lens looks really well made, I've handled it and used it a couple of times, but I don't remember well enough at the moment. I wonder if my proposed design really would put undue strain on the lens?
The plan b is actually a whole lot simpler. Between the focus and zoom rings there is a good spot for a lens collar, except for two things - the M/A-M switch and the distance scale window. The band itself has a slight inset. The idea here would be to wrap it with a nylon sleeve that fits the profile exactly, just thick enough to clear the switch and with exact cut outs for the distance scales and switch. The profile of the sleeve should either have a grove, ridge, or other cross section which holds a collar in place, allowing it to rotate, but not slip on or off. Then, on the collar itself, two windows machined out - one to allow access to the switch, the other to see the distance scales, but only in landscape orientation, in both cases. The foot should angle back towards the body enough to centre the weight with the camera body and done. ......................................... |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Not sure that putting it between the zoom and focus ring will make things better. Just hand holding the 24-70 with the D700 now, I can tell you that it becomes extremely back heavy under those conditions. Of course the D700 weighs more than the 24-70, which might explain that. Doesn't help any that most of the lens's weight is near the rear as well. The foot would have to be setback as far as the rear of the zoom ring, making the zoom ring almost unusable.
Note that the top of the lens (focus window etc) juts up, while the bottom is recessed. The M/A switch has a large bump on the bottom to make matters worse. That could make the collar part extremely hard to make. Last edited by PB PM : 2011-12-17 at 22:24. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I wonder if it would really be a problem just to leave both the window and the switch covered. Not by the sleeve - which needs enough thickness and the cutouts so to avoid interfering with the ring - but just by the ring. Any problems just leaving the switch in M/A mode and controlling M-A via the body?
As for the distance scale, one little cut-out to leave the window visible shouldn't weaken it, but it's arguably even less useful than the switch. In other news, Nikonrumors has a very positive review of the V1 system. The images take with it seem quite nice considering. If it had a 24-85 equivalent that went down to f/2 or better at the wide end, it could be quite a good little camera. That, and a sub $500 price... ......................................... |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
What a terrible day. I was out shopping and missed a good half dozen photos, two in particular, a solitary man as well as a couple having lunch. In both cases I found myself sitting nearby in the perfect spot for a pic, and it wouldn't have needed anything better than a 50 or a 35mm. The only thing missing was my camera, fvck! It made me want to get a Thinktank R5 or R10 to use as a "Murse" - One Camera body, two primes, that's all.
......................................... Last edited by Matsu : 2011-12-24 at 08:03. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Henry's has their boxing week sale on and some Gitzo tripods are massively marked down. Just ordered the GITZO GT3531S for $623.99 Cdn (that's $158 off the normal price and nearly $200 off MSRP!), so I'm a little excited!
Last edited by PB PM : 2011-12-26 at 19:09. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
Hey, that's my tripod! Very nice. You'll need a head!
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
I do have a manfrotto head (I'm assuming it will still work), which I'll use till I can get something better.
Last edited by PB PM : 2011-12-27 at 01:47. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
How tall does that Gitzo go? Even though I'm really cheap, I think the buy it for life quality of the Gitzo might be the smartest play. I've never gotten around actually buying a tripod. I keep renting them from the cage. What I've learned is that three way heads, even really good ones, suck.
I'm really curious to see an acratech ball head, there are a couple of nice innovations there. ......................................... |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
The GT3531S has no centre column, although you can get an optional one. The max hight is 129cm (around 4.2 feet). That sounds kind of short, but once you add a ball head and your camera, with say a battery grip, the hight is just about right for someone who is 5.6-5.11.
I like the Acratech heads in theory, never have a chance to play with any of them in person, but I might end up getting a Kirk BH-1. Last edited by PB PM : 2011-12-27 at 11:29. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I need a Gitzo tripod primer. So many models, I can't keep them all straight. I need something that extends a little taller to get the right perspective on interior shots. Something that packs light and holds big weight.
......................................... |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 30 of 114 First Previous 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 Next Last |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat | rdlomas | Apple Products | 47 | 2010-02-04 09:37 |
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital | kieran | Purchasing Advice | 3 | 2005-11-18 18:20 |
New Digital Camera! | PowermacG5newbie | Genius Bar | 2 | 2005-05-17 23:07 |