D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
MikeInIndy Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Why so defensive?

ultimitsu wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

24-85 vs 17-55, 50 F1.8 vs 35 F1.4.

A variable aperture consumer kit zoom

Variable aperture does not matter the slightest. at wide end it is faster than 17-55 by 1/3 stop at long end it is slower by 1/4 stop.

Actually, yeah it does, most professionals and video users would strongly prefer the fixed aperture since the exposure changes as you zoom with a variable aperture lens.

with significant distortion

D600 can afford distortion correction and still have more resolution left than APS-C with 17-55.

Which slows the camera down for processing, and perhaps you've forgotten the cameras we're comparing have the same resolution?

and made of plastic

does metal body make you happier? if so then you may well find 17-55 better value.

No but if you bang it into something it has a better chance of survival

is not comparable to a metal constant aperture lens,

IQ is comparable, which is what the debate is all about.

Ignoring every factor other than sharpness, they're relatively close sure...

and the 35 f1.4 is full frame just like the 50.

It is , but to achieve the DOf and low light ability of 50 F1.8 on FF you have no other option but to go with 35 F1.4

No, you have the option not to subvert the argument by making a false comparison, the argument is DX lenses are cheaper than FX lenses or vice versa, you can't use 2 FX lenses to make that argument.  This would be like me saying "oh well how about the 18-55, oh, they don't have that for FX, well you'll have to compare that 150 dollar lens to a 600 dollar 24-85 since that's the closest FX can get" which is kinda the point, there's a number of excellently sharp 200 dollar lenses that cover most of the important range for DX.  FX can't even come close to that value.

Nikon doesn't make a directly comparable lens to the 17-55,

Because who would want a F4 zoom with no VR?

but Canon makes one that's pretty close, and it's the same price, the 24-70 IS f4.

The 24-70 F4 is overpriced, it is not very well received. but despite that it is a better lens than 17-55. it has IS and it has by far the best light transmission of all F4 zooms, on the other hand 17-55 loses about 0.3 stops of light (which is still good, but 24-70 is better)

Nikons closest lens is the 24-120 f4 which is a little cheaper but has a lot of distortion and is not built to the same quality standard.

24-120 F4 has significantly more range. But what we can also compare is 16-85 against 24-120 F3.5-F5.6. the 24-120 is one stop faster and is about 1/2 the price.

The 24-120 variable is again not in the same league of as the 16-85 in really any measurable performance category other than aperture

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

It is the only way to compare.

If it was the only way to compare DX only lenses would be marked with their 35mm equivalent focal length.  And their apertures would be "de-rated" to their 35mm equivalents too.

-- hide signature --


 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon 1 V2 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow