Switching to Nikon Brand, holy trinity question

16-35
24-120
70-200

If you want the very best sharpness and quality possible and want this for cheap, go with the 1.8 "G" primes!

Ruud Wilschut said:

Ruud Wilschut wrote:

If you want the very best sharpness and quality possible and want this for cheap, go with the 1.8 "G" primes!

Click to expand...

I am well aware primes tend to be sharper than zooms but I am looking for more versatility, currently the system I have is nothing but primes because the zooms from said company are all terrible & I can not handle being stuck with primes any more and I want to go full frame beside the fact that I miss good low light performance.

KariIceland said:

KariIceland wrote:

KariIceland said:

Ruud Wilschut wrote:

If you want the very best sharpness and quality possible and want this for cheap, go with the 1.8 "G" primes!

Click to expand...

I am well aware primes tend to be sharper than zooms but I am looking for more versatility, currently the system I have is nothing but primes because the zooms from said company are all terrible & I can not handle being stuck with primes any more and I want to go full frame beside the fact that I miss good low light performance.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, high quality fast zooms and low price do not go together often. Primes do, but yes, they aren't so versatile like zooms.

Well.....

14-24 alternatives:

Having owned this lens and tested several others, I have good measure on how they stack. If you want a widest possible zoom, the Nikon is the best game. 14mm is wider than 16mm, right? But if 16mm is what you want then the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 is indistinguishable from my 14-24 over the same ranges. Not quite as good is the Nikon 16-35vr, which is slower glass but adds VR (and a lot of distortion).

24-70 alternatives:

Having sold my 24-70, I did in fact buy the 28mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. The jump in quality has been great and I don't miss the 24-70 ever! But I did miss the convenience so I bought a Nikon 24-85vr and was shocked to find that in most cases it did the exact same job. In fact, with the 85mm and 4 stop VR I am finding the little zoom SUPERIOR to my old 24-70 workhorse. Live and learn. Another lens to look at is the excellent Tamron 24-70. I tested one and found it to be the best I'd ever used, but BIG.

70-200 VRII

I have not sold my VRII. After owning the VR1 and testing the new F4 I'm sticking with what I have. It's one of my most used lenses and I shoot it below F4 far too often to ever consider a lesser lens like the F4. If you don't need 2.8 then it's a good compromise. A newer 70-200 VR1 is also a great lens and the FX issues don't effect most types of shooting. My copy was pretty darn sharp in the corners and the darkening was easy to correct. I've heard some good stuff about the Tamron 70-200, but have yet to see one in person.



Cheers,



Robert

My 24-120 f/4 is the most used lens in my bag. It is very sharp and very versatile. I also love my 16-35 f/4. It is very sharp also and, except for the distortion at 16-18 mm, it's hard to beat. The one member of the holy trinity I do have is the 70-200 f/2.8. To me it's well worth the cost and I use the apertures wider than f/4 very often. The other two options are quite good and I chose them instead of members of the HT because of cost. IMHO, they are very good alternatives.

I'd go with the 24-85 rather than the 24-120. Spend the extra on a 85mm f1.8g for maximum IQ when needed or get the 14-24 which is superior to the 16-35.

romfordbluenose said:

romfordbluenose wrote:

I'd go with the 24-85 rather than the 24-120. Spend the extra on a 85mm f1.8g for maximum IQ when needed or get the 14-24 which is superior to the 16-35.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The 24-85vr has about the same or better IQ, 1/2 stop better VR, faster glass at the wide end, smaller/lighter to carry.

The 24-120 has better build, 35mm extra at the long end (which will covered much better by a 70-200 anyway. It's VR has the active/normal mode missing from the 24-85vr.

The 24-120 F4 does not add up to a good value. The 24-85vr plus a few of the newer primes keeps the versatility and increases the ultimate IQ.



Cheers,





Robert

KariIceland said:

KariIceland wrote:

Hello everyone, I am planning on switching brands & I was wondering if there is a GOOD "cheap" alternative to the holy trinity (zoom edition)?

By that I mean an f4 version which is as equally sharp or close to the same sharpness? Does not have to have the same depth of field but sharpness is of course a big focus for me,

as I feel f4 is enough for my purposes and will cost me over a years pay so yea... the 2.8's are just far out of my budgets.

Any opinions & advice?

Click to expand...

Sigma 12-24 HSM II. Works very well on D800. (Less flare than 14-24, not that sharp though and much more distortion)
Tamron 24-70 F2.8, an incredible lens. Some samples . (Had the Nikon 24-70)
Nikon 70-200 F4. According to dxo even a tad sharper than the 70-200 VRII. (I use 70-200VRII)

KariIceland said:

KariIceland wrote:

Hello everyone, I am planning on switching brands & I was wondering if there is a GOOD "cheap" alternative to the holy trinity (zoom edition)?

By that I mean an f4 version which is as equally sharp or close to the same sharpness? Does not have to have the same depth of field but sharpness is of course a big focus for me,

as I feel f4 is enough for my purposes and will cost me over a years pay so yea... the 2.8's are just far out of my budgets.

Any opinions & advice?

Click to expand...

Are you a pro ?

If not, and like the rest of us, a hobbyist, then I dont understand why you feel the need to have "holy trinity".

the 24-70 for example, is very much a a PJ lens, it is big and heavy, zoom is short, IQ is mediocre, the only reason to have it is if you need to take a picture in a variety of situations and you need F2.8, which is what Pros do. as a hobbyist, 24-85 VR + a few primes is a much better way to spend this money because you end up with more versatility (in the 24-85) and better IQ (in the primes)

You failed to tell us what Nikon body you are considering, but here goes anyway...

I have the trinity and they are all excellent. Without knowing more about your style, let me say that the 24-70 f/2.8 lives on one of my D4s. Prior to the 24-70, I had the 24-85 and I know it to be an excellent lens. With the low light/low noise capability of the D4's (for that matter, the D700, D3, D3s), the only need I have for f/2.8 or lower is to isolate subject from background.

My favorite lens is the incredible 70-200 f/2.8VRII. I would be tempted to replace it if cost were an issue in one of three ways...older 80-200 f/2.8 (these were excellent lenses minus only VR, but heavier than new versions), new 70-200 f/4 or with a 75-300 f/4.5.

Where you're stuck is the 14-24 f/2.8. All my glass is Nikkor, so I know of no viable substitute for this lens other than Nikon's own 17-35 f/2.8.

I am a pro and have been shooting Nikon since 1957 when I started. That is before Nikon introduced the revolutionary "F". I still have my Nikon rangefinders. I've seen excellent camera systems come and go. Nikon remains and they are the only company I know of where I can attach an ancient 105mm f/2.5 to the latest from Nikon and use it.

I am not a fan of fixed focal length lenses. I don't believe they offer any practical advantages over zooms.

Welcome to the Dark Side!

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu wrote:

ultimitsu said:

KariIceland wrote:

Hello everyone, I am planning on switching brands & I was wondering if there is a GOOD "cheap" alternative to the holy trinity (zoom edition)?

By that I mean an f4 version which is as equally sharp or close to the same sharpness? Does not have to have the same depth of field but sharpness is of course a big focus for me,

as I feel f4 is enough for my purposes and will cost me over a years pay so yea... the 2.8's are just far out of my budgets.

Any opinions & advice?

Click to expand...

Are you a pro ?

If not, and like the rest of us, a hobbyist, then I dont understand why you feel the need to have "holy trinity".

the 24-70 for example, is very much a a PJ lens, it is big and heavy, zoom is short, IQ is mediocre, the only reason to have it is if you need to take a picture in a variety of situations and you need F2.8, which is what Pros do. as a hobbyist, 24-85 VR + a few primes is a much better way to spend this money because you end up with more versatility (in the 24-85) and better IQ (in the primes)

Click to expand...

The answer is simple: image quality, with a good camera and bad lenses what's the point?

And no I am not a pro but that is because you require a license in my country and many years of studies to be allowed to work professionally.

KariIceland said:

KariIceland wrote:

KariIceland said:

ultimitsu wrote:

KariIceland said:

KariIceland wrote:

Hello everyone, I am planning on switching brands & I was wondering if there is a GOOD "cheap" alternative to the holy trinity (zoom edition)?

By that I mean an f4 version which is as equally sharp or close to the same sharpness? Does not have to have the same depth of field but sharpness is of course a big focus for me,

as I feel f4 is enough for my purposes and will cost me over a years pay so yea... the 2.8's are just far out of my budgets.

Any opinions & advice?

Click to expand...

Are you a pro ?

If not, and like the rest of us, a hobbyist, then I dont understand why you feel the need to have "holy trinity".

the 24-70 for example, is very much a a PJ lens, it is big and heavy, zoom is short, IQ is mediocre, the only reason to have it is if you need to take a picture in a variety of situations and you need F2.8, which is what Pros do. as a hobbyist, 24-85 VR + a few primes is a much better way to spend this money because you end up with more versatility (in the 24-85) and better IQ (in the primes)

Click to expand...

The answer is simple: image quality, with a good camera and bad lenses what's the point?

And no I am not a pro but that is because you require a license in my country and many years of studies to be allowed to work professionally.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you actually read my post before replying, I specifically mentioned IQ twice.

My point is, you do not necessarily get better quality with F2.8 zooms. for example, 28 F1.8, 50 F1.8 85 F1.8 and a 35mm would give you significantly better IQ than 24-70.

Apart from 14-24 which is amazing, most high end nikon high end zooms are not that great. 24-70 has significant CA and isnt that sharp.

Not knowing from where you're coming from its difficult to answer. What I would suggest is you go try the holy trinity, put them all in a bag with your D600/800 and see if you can lift it.

Have a look at the kit you have now and compare it with what you can afford with Nikon.

Have a look at the Nikon site and compare the weights.

I'd love to have the money to switch to Nikon and buy the holy trinity, but that's not what I'd spend the money on.

As I said before the best IQ lens per $ or £ is the 85mm f1.8g.

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu wrote:

ultimitsu said:

KariIceland wrote:

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu wrote:

ultimitsu said:

KariIceland wrote:

Hello everyone, I am planning on switching brands & I was wondering if there is a GOOD "cheap" alternative to the holy trinity (zoom edition)?

By that I mean an f4 version which is as equally sharp or close to the same sharpness? Does not have to have the same depth of field but sharpness is of course a big focus for me,

as I feel f4 is enough for my purposes and will cost me over a years pay so yea... the 2.8's are just far out of my budgets.

Any opinions & advice?

Click to expand...

Are you a pro ?

If not, and like the rest of us, a hobbyist, then I dont understand why you feel the need to have "holy trinity".

the 24-70 for example, is very much a a PJ lens, it is big and heavy, zoom is short, IQ is mediocre, the only reason to have it is if you need to take a picture in a variety of situations and you need F2.8, which is what Pros do. as a hobbyist, 24-85 VR + a few primes is a much better way to spend this money because you end up with more versatility (in the 24-85) and better IQ (in the primes)

Click to expand...

The answer is simple: image quality, with a good camera and bad lenses what's the point?

And no I am not a pro but that is because you require a license in my country and many years of studies to be allowed to work professionally.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you actually read my post before replying, I specifically mentioned IQ twice.

My point is, you do not necessarily get better quality with F2.8 zooms. for example, 28 F1.8, 50 F1.8 85 F1.8 and a 35mm would give you significantly better IQ than 24-70.

Apart from 14-24 which is amazing, most high end nikon high end zooms are not that great. 24-70 has significant CA and isnt that sharp.

Click to expand...

A zoom is always a compromise at some level. With that said I think the 14-24 and 70-200 VRII are amazingly good. I agree that the 24-70 is a bland lens, but it's still quite good. In the 100-200mm range the VRII really has few primes to threaten it's superb rendering. I consider it a Must-Have lens.

Robert

romfordbluenose said:

romfordbluenose wrote:

Not knowing from where you're coming from its difficult to answer. What I would suggest is you go try the holy trinity, put them all in a bag with your D600/800 and see if you can lift it.

Have a look at the kit you have now and compare it with what you can afford with Nikon.

Have a look at the Nikon site and compare the weights.

I'd love to have the money to switch to Nikon and buy the holy trinity, but that's not what I'd spend the money on.

As I said before the best IQ lens per $ or £ is the 85mm f1.8g.

Click to expand...

+1 on the 85mm 1.8G. I prefer it to the 1.4G regardless of price.

Robert

I'm an amateur and I have the holy trinity. I use the 24-70 and the 70-200 extensively. The 14-24 sits on the shelf a lot.

It is difficult to fit it into my bag with the others. I rarely do ultrawide shots of dynamic subjects, so I do a lot of stitching. When I use the 14-24 I'm happy with the results, but I just don't need it that much.

Most of my work is PJ, documentation, and family stuff. As an amateur, I also use the 28-300 a lot because it reduces what I have to carry. The 14-24-70-200 beats it in IQ but it's SO convenient for casual stuff.

dwight3 said:

dwight3 wrote:

I'm an amateur and I have the holy trinity. I use the 24-70 and the 70-200 extensively. The 14-24 sits on the shelf a lot.

It is difficult to fit it into my bag with the others. I rarely do ultrawide shots of dynamic subjects, so I do a lot of stitching. When I use the 14-24 I'm happy with the results, but I just don't need it that much.

Most of my work is PJ, documentation, and family stuff. As an amateur, I also use the 28-300 a lot because it reduces what I have to carry. The 14-24-70-200 beats it in IQ but it's SO convenient for casual stuff.

Click to expand...

Yup...it all comes down to personal needs!

The 28-300 is a lot of fun to use. I love to hear lens snobs try to bash it while never understanding that good photography isn't always about using a best lens possible every second of the day.

Robert

I've never understood the obsession with ultra-wide on full-frame.

Yes, the 14-24 makes sense on a DX, but I simply wouldn't use it on an FX. So I don't own one.

I use the 24-70 and 70-200 VR2 on a D800E. It's all I need. I've tried a number of other lenses, but I don't find them necessary. I would like a fast prime, but I haven't like any of the ones I've tried.