 |
Scorpius1
Joined on
May 23, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
I bet canon is preparing for a high res body,this lens in combination with the 70-200mk2 would work like a charm on a 40MP body,I used the 24-70mk2 for about 2 weeks on a 1DX,lighter and faster AF than mk1 with few CA's and nice that the street price is coming down now,I prefer the new filter size too.IS is rumoured to be on the way which will appeal to wedding and journalist snappers..
Very average image.. anyone could have taken that shot...
C1 gives great I.Q but the lens correction support is poor compared to LR4's extensive support...
Kite Kraemer: Too little, too late. I didn't want to switch back to Canon, but I'm glad I did --their customer service is great!
I use both system's,I can say from experience that Canon CS is very good..
Nikon007: My advice has always been "stay away from wide Gamut unless you know what your doing". For me it's not worth the hassle to see colors no one else can. You don't see it in print, your clients don't see it, on the web they can't be seen. So what good is it? It's great for a dedicated graphics station but for general use it causes many folks a lot of head aches. So if WG is your cup of tea go for it. If your not sure do your research first, there are lot of threads on this subject going back for years and nothing has really changed.
Wide gamut is better for processing,you can easily output for web in sRGB... besides RAW is colorspace agnostic
BingoCharlie: I wonder how this compares to DXO's Film Pack 3?
Or Alienskins Exposure 4 which is also very good,but I do use DXO filmpack a lot and love it,it needs to be updated to output to a separate/new layer though.
Time for my EF800 to hit ebay,I am in for this new Nikkor 800
Jun2: $17,899.95, wow
Suggested retail and street price and two very different things..
I value them as both tools and objects.. each to their own opinion
I find LR4 pretty easy to deal with,the catalogue is a virtual library,importing files already on your drive are not duplicated but relocated to the folder of choice in the database,the actual raw conversion engine is excellent,I think as good as C1P and the fact that most of the best plug-ins can be added to the app is sweet... it could be a little faster but i can live with it.. overall I like it..
And just to really get the party going Canon will release the 35L mk2 in the new year... which will be fully weather sealed.. although way pricier than the sigma..
Erik Johansen: For that price it should got a 100% score.......
Fools seldom differ...
Sorry I just resist it... ;-)
Pictus: For DXO guys:
-Need NATIVE color space bigger than Adobe RGB, see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54284.0
-Again no 'multi point color balance tool' for the Windows version :(
For Amadou Diallo, please include Photo Ninja into the comparative as it is another excellent high-end converter.
Corel AfterShot Pro would be a good idea too as it is the fastest of all.
Some users need quality above all, others speed ...
How about Raw Developer..??
DXO definitely need to add support for profoto rgb... and a local adjustment brush.
vincenzo_filippo: Again, can you post the prices in Euro too? I'm a little bit disappointed ...
RRP is €950
ForeignerOnEarth: Nikkor 24-85 is terrible lens, not for 24MPx. Nikkor 24-120/4 has big center-edge difference in sharpness too. Only heavy and expensive zoom 24-70/2.8 is suitable for this FX low-end body. Canon has the best 24-70/2.8 II now, amazing 24-70/4 IS and much better 24-105/4 than Nikkkor lenses. Nikon had better lenses, but last two years every new FX zoom lens is worse than Canon lenses. 70-200/2.8 II is worse than Canon too. Canon full frame lenses are amazing, the last amazing Nikkor FX zoom was 14-24/2.8. Why, Nikon????
Canon 85mm is better at focusing wide open.. Lloyd Chambers concurs,edge sharpness is not that important with these portrait lenses,neither is great wide open,and there is some basis in reality ,I have both of them,, thats pretty real...
ForeignerOnEarth: Nikkor 24-85 is terrible lens, not for 24MPx. Nikkor 24-120/4 has big center-edge difference in sharpness too. Only heavy and expensive zoom 24-70/2.8 is suitable for this FX low-end body. Canon has the best 24-70/2.8 II now, amazing 24-70/4 IS and much better 24-105/4 than Nikkkor lenses. Nikon had better lenses, but last two years every new FX zoom lens is worse than Canon lenses. 70-200/2.8 II is worse than Canon too. Canon full frame lenses are amazing, the last amazing Nikkor FX zoom was 14-24/2.8. Why, Nikon????
@Marike6.. part 2.. "Verdict
However, in summary the Nikkor 24-70 currently sets the benchmark for F-mount FX standard zoom lenses....
benchmark "F" mount FX standard zoom.. not benchmark standard zoom.. I have both.. i prefer the canon.. canon's 7-200mm is also better.. and the 85mm 1.2l is easily as good if not better then the 85mm 1.4g.. and yes,i have both lenses
ForeignerOnEarth: Nikkor 24-85 is terrible lens, not for 24MPx. Nikkor 24-120/4 has big center-edge difference in sharpness too. Only heavy and expensive zoom 24-70/2.8 is suitable for this FX low-end body. Canon has the best 24-70/2.8 II now, amazing 24-70/4 IS and much better 24-105/4 than Nikkkor lenses. Nikon had better lenses, but last two years every new FX zoom lens is worse than Canon lenses. 70-200/2.8 II is worse than Canon too. Canon full frame lenses are amazing, the last amazing Nikkor FX zoom was 14-24/2.8. Why, Nikon????
@Marike6.. what photo zone actually said.part 1 ."Verdict
The Nikkor AF-S 24-70 is an impressive standard zooms lens that delivers very sharp and contrasty images. With its fast aperture it allows for low light shooting or alternatively object separation with limited depth of field, where it delivers an unusually smooth bokeh for a zoom lens in this focal range. It is built as solid as you'd expect a pro grade lens to be and its sonic wave driven AF is very fast and silent.
It's not without flaws, though. Distortions are very high at the wide end, but at least they are of uniform shape and thus can be corrected in software if required. CAs are very high, too, but just like distortions can easily be corrected in software (in fact most current Nikon DSLRs do this already if you shoot JPGs). The wavy image field at the low end might be an issue if you shoot flat objects and last but not least the lens is not exactly cheap.
ForeignerOnEarth: Nikkor 24-85 is terrible lens, not for 24MPx. Nikkor 24-120/4 has big center-edge difference in sharpness too. Only heavy and expensive zoom 24-70/2.8 is suitable for this FX low-end body. Canon has the best 24-70/2.8 II now, amazing 24-70/4 IS and much better 24-105/4 than Nikkkor lenses. Nikon had better lenses, but last two years every new FX zoom lens is worse than Canon lenses. 70-200/2.8 II is worse than Canon too. Canon full frame lenses are amazing, the last amazing Nikkor FX zoom was 14-24/2.8. Why, Nikon????
Lloyd Chambers rates the new canon24-70 very high.. I have used it and i have used the nikon 24-70.. the canon is excellent
Reilly Diefenbach: In other news, the DXO development team with an eye to Version 9 are closely studying a new program that's only been out for five years called Lightroom to try to figure out how to make DXO as fast and easy to use.
I own most of the raw converters,honestly I think this latest version of DXO is very good.