Choosing Nikkors, by Thom Hogan

[cyclohexane]

Thom Hogan just put up a new article. If you're so inclined to give it a read: Nikkor Lens Assessment by Thom Hogan

I guess this is where I put something along the lines of "Discussion?"

[Nikonfreak]

I read it earlier when I got home today.

Thom always has some good insight and good information. Though if anyone other than Thom Hogan were to say something negative about the 200-400 VR, they'd be immediately verbally assaulted on certain forums which shall remain nameless.

There is quite a bit of good information on this article that Thom wrote..

I'm also pleased to see that my suspicions and my own testing has been fairly accurate... or shall I say... In agreement with what Thom has come across.

Thom is absolutely right in what he said about the 14-24 f/2.8 ... I don't know that I could say enough good things about that lens. It's superb. There is little distortion and it has some qualities that really make it stand out against any lens that Nikon has put out there in it's focal range IMO. I can't say I miss the 12-24 f/4. I shot a yacht interior with the 14-24 last week and the D3 and I'm very impressed.

I'm in the middle of a switch to a Mac system (because frankly, there was no way on the planet I was going to run a Vista system and put myself through that pain. I've been wanting to switch to Mac for a while and since I needed a new computer, now was the time to make the jump. Vista was enough of a difference to where if I'm going to spend some time learning a different system, I might as well go Mac. Why am I mentioning this on this thread? Well, because I used the demo of Aperture 2.0 to load those images from the yacht shoot. Me like Aperture. I did buy the Mac version of CS3 because you absolutely must have it, but Aperture is, to me, a little better than lightroom. Anyway, I digress.

Ok... so I'm also glad to see that the 300 f/2.8 VR has grown on Thom. I'm quite pleased with mine. I have found it to be much more versatile than I thought and I really don't miss the zooms at all with that lens. I can't get by with f/4 so the 200-400 is pretty much out for me. The next real lens that I will purchase will be the 400 f/2.8 VR. It will be a late 2008 or early 2009 purchase for me though.

I'm glad to see Thom mention the 5T and 6T diopter lenses. If you can find them, buy them. They are super on the 200 f/4. I sold my 200 f/4 Micro Nikkor a while back to partially fund the 300 f/2.8 VR but I can honestly say that I miss having that lens. I will pick up another one, but I'm hoping that Nikon adds AF-S to it. I don't care about VR on it, but AF-S would be nice as that lens does tend to hunt a bit and is a slow focusing lens.

Even though I sold the 200 f/4, I did NOT sell the 5T or 6T filters. Those are staying with me. I picked mine up at Adorama. Sometimes they get a few in and they'll have 'em. I bought mine about two years ago. They are awesome!!!!!

Next... My lens lineup doesn't nearly include all of those lenses Thom has on there.

I've limited myself to a narrow few... I did help a buddy and sold him my 24-70 f/2.8 but here's the current list.

Nikon 28-70 f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8
Nikon 85mm f/1.4
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR
Nikon 35 f/2
Nikon 50 f/1.8

For my DX kit
Nikon 10.5 fisheye f/2.8

That's it anymore on DX lenses... I sold the 12-24 f/4

Macro
Sigma 105 f/2.8 (It's good...and it's inexpensive... since I don't make money on Macro shooting...it'll do)

On the list of next lenses to acquire...

1- 400 f/2.8 VR (or AF-S II)
2- 24-70 f/2.8 (again) - I will get another copy, I'm just not sure when I'll pull the trigger for another one.

Thom has some great advice on the long, exotic lenses. Pay close attention to what he's saying and what he's also not saying. He did commit the first Heresy by saying something unkind about the 200-400. He's a braver man than I am...of course, he's absolutely right...as usual.

As with all things. Some tools are better than others for certain jobs. That's just the way of things. The 200-400 f/4 is a great lens, but I am not sure about plopping a TC on it. On the 300 f/2.8 and a 400 f/2.8, I wouldn't think twice about it.

I will add that with the 1.7x TC on my 300 f/2.8 VR, the lens will suffer from hesitation and focus hunting with faster moving objects... read...birds in flight... take the TC off and the thing performs like it could lock on to a moving rocket at 10 feet away.

Maybe I'll add more later, but I have to hit the sack. Long day tomorrow.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

I have the following:

17-35 f/2.8D AF-S
24-70 f/2.8G AF-S
70-200 f/2.8G AF-S
85 f/1.4D AF-S
300 f/2.8G AF-S VR
400 f/2.8D AF-S I

Of these, the most used are the 24-70 and 400, though it could be because they're my most recent acquisitions. The 17-35 and 85 used to make up most of my shooting, with the 70-200 and 300 doing sports duty, but the 24-70 has been a little more convenient as a carry-around lens for spot news stuff (more reach), and the background separation using the 400 is just unreal. The 70-200 is a good general purpose lens, but I find myself using it less and less.

Occasionally I think about getting rid of some of these lenses, but I think I'd miss them too much...

Though if anyone other than Thom Hogan were to say something negative about the 200-400 VR, they'd be immediately verbally assaulted on certain forums which shall remain nameless.

Tom Swanaman and I have observed similar things to Thom with that lens, though Tom ended up discovering he had a lemon. In practical usage I don't see much of an issue (other than the f/4 max aperture), but the other prime exotics definitely outperform it, as they should.

The 200-400 f/4 is a great lens, but I am not sure about plopping a TC on it.

The TC-14E/II gives workable results if you stop down to f/8. TC-20E/II is soft even at f/11-13 at most lengths and focusing distances.

[Nikonfreak]

I believe that most folks, once they start using one of the 300mm primes, whether the f/2.8 or f/4, realize soon thereafter that the focal length is not as limiting as they thought it would be. A few TC's (1.4x and 1.7x) and you've really got a workable system for opimal results.

I'm sure Thom's lemon was serviced at Nikon or exchanged. Now, I do wonder if now with the D3's high ISO capabilities, whether or not that lens becomes more usable in lower light environments. I don't have one...so I guess I'll have to continue to wonder for a while and my next large lens purchase will be the 400 f/2.8 and I'll put that in front of getting the 24-70 again. If I can find a decent copy of a used 400 f/2.8, I'd probably go that route just given the cost factors.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

I'm sure Thom's lemon was serviced at Nikon or exchanged.

Tom (no h) got a new one from Nikon after repeated trips to Nikon Service.

I do wonder if now with the D3's high ISO capabilities, whether or not that lens becomes more usable in lower light environments

Yes, but f/4 will still be a limiting factor for AF. It still will work pretty well; I covered night soccer once with a 200-400mm f/4 and a D200; AF worked, though it was slow.

once they start using one of the 300mm primes, whether the f/2.8 or f/4, realize soon thereafter that the focal length is not as limiting as they thought it would be

I like 400mm better, even on DX. Guess that means I'll need a 600mm f/4 if I end up having only FX bodies. <insert expletives here>

[Nikonfreak]

Yep, who'd have thought we'd actually MISS the crop factor. LOL

Oh, one thing I should say is that Tom (no h) referred to the Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S as a budget "fx" kit lens.

I had this lens a while back and it was excellent. Distortion was somewhat of a factor at the short end but as a general purpose lens it was a pretty solid performer.

I sold it though. For a few hundred bucks, I wish I'd have kept it for light travel.

This lens is no longer available new from Nikon. It was discontinued a while back...probably more than a year ago...so it's only available as a used item unless you get lucky and find one new in some remote store somewhere.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

Yep, who'd have thought we'd actually MISS the crop factor. LOL

Well, the 600mm f/4 on FX should have amazing background separation. I'm not paying for that any time soon.

I think my dad wants one though. Ahem...

-----

I do miss 24x36mm imaging media for wides, but for telephoto work where I'm cropping the thing anyways, why do I need that extra empty space in the frame? Saves me some time on the computer.

Horses for courses, I guess.

[Bonner]

Why does he end up with the 24-70 "D" at the end and not the "G"? Anyone?

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Bonner

Why does he end up with the 24-70 "D" at the end and not the "G"? Anyone?

I think it was a typo. There is a 24-85 variable aperature model that still is currently being produced by NIkon. I think the AF-S model that was 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 was better than the 2.8 - 4.0

Julio

[Bonner]

Thanks Julio...that's what I thought. CameraWorld and B&H are both out of stock! -Jim

[Nikonfreak]

Yep, they are hard to find...but I'll give you a hint. If you can find a good 28-70 f/2.8 at a bargain price... grab one.

I had a 24-70 f/2.8 G for a few weeks and a buddy of mine wanted it for a trip to Alaska he was taking so I went ahead and let him buy it from me for what I paid for it. I'll pick one up again sometime down the road, but I'm fine with the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S now that 28mm is 28mm again on the D3.

Julio

[Bonner]

I'm excited to get mine...just notified that my 24-70G was shipped today from CameraWorld!
I was getting ready to rent one from Samy's Camera as I have two model shoots in 10 days. Both are outdoor and I need the depth of field to separate the model from the backgrounds.

[Bonner]

Later today I will put the 24-70 to work on a bikini modeling shoot. I will build some muscles in my arms as it, with the D300, are very heavy! I will be shooting for 6 hours straight.

Next week I will give my opinion of the lens and post some work.

Cheers,
Jim

For my west coast friends, going to El Matador State Beach in Malibu.

[Bonner]

My expectations were met. Fast to focus and sharp enough for this type of photography. It appears that it will be attached to my D300 for most of my work.

[williamkazak]

Nice pic. Can you discuss your settings and lighting?

[moizes]

Thom is the one of the well known best testers today. No words. But, I think, the real way for everyone is to try to find his/her best combination of lens/camera/light, for every given situation. For me, combo of D3, 14-24 and 24-120 VR plus SB-800 was working today. BTW, 24-120 VR is very sharp, just try to find good one, there is big sample variations with this lens. Sorry for resizing/cropping artifacts for posting, there is nothing I can do. Dimitri.

[Bonner]

Originally Posted by williamkazak

Nice pic. Can you discuss your settings and lighting?

Thanks and of course...