24-70 / 2. 8 (G or E) or 16-35 / 4 (24/1 .8) + 70-200 / 4 on d810 instead of 24-120 / 4?

Pages: 1

07.07.2018 3:36:00
He recently became the happy owner of the D810. There is to it from the previous carcass 24-120 / 4 (took with a margin for further transition to FF). I shoot it now, he was very pleased with me before, and now it is acceptable, but I looked at dxo and realized that the carcass can please much more than now, because the indicator of this lens has a sharpness of 15 mpix. Pozarilsya at 24-70G, began to read, and he has problems with the ring of zoom appear. I think ok, I'll see a new 24-70E, which is with a Stub. I began to read, according to many reviews, it is worse than its predecessor by its sharpness, again in size even more than its predecessor, which probably further affects the wear of the zoom ring (it is on sale since 2015, but I have not commented on the jammed zoom of this model). I came across a description of 70-200 / 4 and that he is very good at dxo (indicator 29). And can as a shir still 16-35 / 4? He has a true dxo of only 19. Or maybe still look at 24-70 G or E (on dxo again 21 and 19, which is not much then). I thought already about the set of fixes from the series 1. 8G, well, for example 24 and 85, but it's not very practical, when you do not know in what conditions you will be shooting, although it is high-speed. Yes, the whole line of 2.8 is nice, but for just an amateur means too much investment. Does it make sense to replace my 4-1G series with my 24-120 by 70-200 and 16-35 (or instead of fixing it on 24/1 .8G which gives on dxo 30 and not like this zoom 19). Or still take as originally wanted 24-70?
 

07.07.2018 21:29:00
Sigma 24-105 / 4 - an option for the 36 megapixel I used on the D800E, well, or the new Tamron 24-70 / 2. 8 VC G2, but 70 mm short.
And with 16-35 + 70-200 there will be a hole in the running range of 24-70.
But if you shoot for yourself, not on the run in reportage-weddings, then you can collect any set of optics and acquire your own experience.
20/1. 8 G, 35/1. 8 G, 85/1. 8 G are not bad in sharpness, Sigma 24-35 / 2, too, and the whole Art series, but we need to check a specific instance for the accuracy of AF and its stability.

08.07.2018 3:02:00
:
Sigma 24-105 / 4 - the version for the 36 megapixel I used on the D800E, well, or the new Tamron 24-70 / 2. 8 VC G2, but 70 mm short.
And with 16-35 + 70-200 there will be a hole in the running range of 24-70.
But if you shoot for yourself, not on the run in reportage-weddings, you can collect any set of optics and acquire your own experience.
20/1. 8 G, 35/1. 8 G, 85/1. 8 G are not bad in sharpness, Sigma 24-35 / 2, too, and the whole Art series, but we need to check a specific instance for the accuracy of AF and its stability. Hmm, thanks, I'll think about it.

08.07.2018 5:40:00
:
:
Sigma 24-105 / 4 - the version for the 36 megapixel I used on the D800E, well, or the new Tamron 24-70 / 2. 8 VC G2, but 70 mm short.
And with 16-35 + 70-200 there will be a hole in the running range of 24-70.
But if you shoot for yourself, not on the run in reportage-weddings, then you can collect any set of optics and acquire your own experience.
20/1. 8 G, 35/1. 8 G, 85/1. 8 G are not bad in sharpness, Sigma 24-35 / 2, too, and the whole Art series, but we need to check a specific instance for the accuracy of AF and its stability.
Hmm, thanks, I'll think about it.
24/1. 8 G is also good, according to reviews, do not praise only 28/1. 8 G from the ruler 1. 8 G Nikon, well, 50/1. 8 G could be shorter, but it's cheap.

08.07.2018 9:40:00
:
:
:
Sigma 24-105 / 4 - the version for the 36 megapixel I used on the D800E, well, or the new Tamron 24-70 / 2. 8 VC G2, but 70 mm short.
And with 16-35 + 70-200 there will be a hole in the running range of 24-70.
But if you shoot for yourself, not on the run in reportage-weddings, then you can collect any set of optics and acquire your own experience.
20/1. 8 G, 35/1. 8 G, 85/1. 8 G are not bad in sharpness, Sigma 24-35 / 2, too, and the whole Art series, but we need to check a specific instance for the accuracy of AF and its stability.
Hmm, thanks, I'll think about it.
24/1. 8 G is also good, according to reviews, do not praise only 28/1. 8 G from the ruler 1. 8 G Nikon, well, 50/1. 8 G could be shorter, but it's cheap.
Yes, 24, 35, 85 as they write very well. And I seriously thought about Sigma. I see a lot of good reviews.

08.07.2018 11:16:00
:
Pozaralsya at 24-70G, began to read, and he has problems with the zoom ring arise.
Has been using 24-70G for more than five years on different carcasses. Specifically, my specimen did not have any problems. Nothing croaked, the elastic did not go away.
I think ok, I'll look at the new 24-70E, which is with the Stub. Began to read, according to many reviews it is worse than its predecessor by its sharpness
The short answer is a new one is better. On some focal / diaphragms - just a better head. But! In certain cases (focal lengths of about 70 mm, focusing distance close to the minimum), a sharp decrease in sharpness is actually observed. In such cases, the old version may appear a bit sharper than the in the central part of the frame . And for this reason the test results, in which the worlds are removed from small distances, do not look very convincing.

I had both glasses in my hands (at the same time), I had the opportunity to compare them in detail. As a result, the old 24-70 was sold without regrets. In fact, even if the optical characteristics are equal, the E-version could be taken at least because of the stub.
again in size even more than the predecessor
Formally - a little more, but practically notice the difference only when both glasses are next. More importantly, the diameter under the filters is 82 mm.
I came across the description of 70-200 / 4 and the fact that it is very good for dxo (exponent 29).
It's good, it's true. Sharp with almost open, light, with fast autofocus.
And can it still be as wide as 16-35 / 4?
In the range 16-24 - very decent (~ 20mm - sweet spot), but the closer to 35mm, the sadder. It's not correct to compare directly with 24-70 (zoom vs standard zoom), but on common focal 24-35 standard zoom wins. Well, build quality does not compare, in this discipline, 16-35 specifically merges.
Does it make sense to replace my 4-1G with my 24-120 by 70-200 and 16-35 (or instead of fixing it on 24/1 .8G which gives on dxo 30 instead of like this zoom 19). Or still take as originally wanted 24-70?
In a bunch of 16-35 + 70-200 it turns out a specific hole on the most moving focal length. Especially if you remember that from 16-35 is good only up to ~ 24. . 28mm. For what I shoot, it's important. Therefore, as a replacement for the standard 16-35 IMHO zoom is not good.

08.07.2018 12:58:00
:
:
He fought for 24-70G, began to read, and his problems with the zoom ring arise.
Has been using 24-70G for more than five years on different carcasses. Specifically, my specimen did not have any problems. Nothing croaked, the elastic did not go away.
I think ok, I'll look at the new 24-70E, which is with the Stub. I began to read, according to many reviews, it is worse than its predecessor by its sharpness
The short answer is that the new one is better. On some focal / diaphragms - just a better head. But! In certain cases (focal lengths of about 70 mm, focusing distance close to the minimum), a sharp decrease in sharpness is actually observed. In such cases, the old version may appear a little sharper than in the central part of the frame . And for this reason the test results, in which the worlds are removed from small distances, do not look very convincing.

I had both glasses in my hands (at the same time), I had the opportunity to compare them in detail. As a result, the old 24-70 was sold without regrets. In fact, even if the optical characteristics are equal, the E-version could be taken at least because of the stub.
again in size even more than the predecessor
Formally - a little more, but you practically notice the difference only when both glasses are near. More importantly, the diameter under the filters is 82 mm.
I came across a description of 70-200 / 4 and the fact that it is very good for dxo (exponent 29).
It's good, it's true. Sharp with almost open, light, with fast autofocus.
And can it still be as wide as 16-35 / 4?
In the range 16-24 - very decent (~ 20mm - sweet spot), but the closer to 35mm, the sadder. It's not correct to compare directly with 24-70 (zoom vs standard zoom), but on common focal 24-35 standard zoom wins. Well, build quality does not compare, in this discipline, 16-35 specifically merges.
Does it make sense to replace my 4-1G with my 24-120 by 70-200 and 16-35 (or instead of fixing it on 24/1 .8G which gives on dxo 30 instead of like this zoom 19). Or still take as originally wanted 24-70?
In a bunch of 16-35 + 70-200 it turns out a specific hole on the most moving focal length. Especially if you remember that from 16-35 is good only up to ~ 24. . 28mm. For what I shoot, it's important. Therefore, as a replacement for the standard 16-35 IMHO zoom is not good.
Thank you for such a detailed analysis and answer! Hmm, if you do not take 16-35, then in fact it would be a great option 24-70. Perhaps, as now found out the problems were encountered on samples in the initial release period. Well, yes, 24-70 + 70-200 / 4 in the future, of course this bundle is much better than the version with 16-35. But as they say a little I worry that in this case 70-200 it is in the future, and it turns out that for a while it will be necessary to shoot only at 24-70, and it is not known how much by the length of time. The range in this case is not as big as in the case of 24-105 (Sigma). It is clear that in principle, glass of different classes, it is not quite correct to compare them, but it is embarrassed by the reduced range of focal lengths, compared with the usual 24-120. Is it inferior 24-105 from Sigma 24-70 from Nikkor? It is clear that inferior in terms of light, but more focus. And what about quality? I saw many delightful shots with 24-105 and of course with 24-70. . .

08.07.2018 13:59:00
Sigma 24-105 / 4 OS slightly blurs the corners of the frame on the SHU type 24-35 mm, the center is very sharp with the open, cuts right up to the moire. But it is heavier than 24-120.

08.07.2018 14:42:00
128S7778FD4493E876F13851CF0924B:
Sigma 24-105 / 4 OS slightly blurs the corners of the frame on the SHU type 24-35 mm, the center is very sharp with the open, cuts down already to the moiré. But it is heavier than 24-120.
I understand, thanks. In general, the lens is acceptable. Michael, are you talking about sharpness on a similar carcass?
 

08.07.2018 23:26:00
Returning to you old and new 24-70. The most noticeable differences in the sharpness of 70mm.
24-70 / 2. 8E VR at 70mm @ f / 2. 8

Pages: 1

24-70 / 2. 8 (G or E) or 16-35 / 4 (24/1 .8) + 70-200 / 4 on d810 instead of 24-120 / 4?

info@www.about-digital-photo.com