03-29-2012, 11:26 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1332884217' post='17111']
With respect to the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 it is great on a D700, fine in the centre from f2.8 and sharp all through by 5.6. I like the colour rendering very much. I would look at the 24-120. I don't know where you got the info that it is not a great lense! It is every bit as sharp as a 24-70 and has a better focal range. I sold my 24-70 to get a 24-120. I agree with you on the 50 and 85mm AFS f1.8. They are great and not expensive. I use the 85mm AFD f1.8, which is optically as good and with an AF that is good enough for me.
Maybe wait for the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. It might be a very good choice if you really want a 24-70! If you need a 70-200, then buy the Nikon, either the 80-200 AFD, (new for 1000€) or the VRII. That is one area where I would not go "cheap"!
[/quote]
Indeed the 20mm f/2.8 seems nice.
There is also the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 that seems like a good value. Quite a few reports claim it's pretty descent. It can be had for ~$200 used, so it may be worth checking out.
From the test here, the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 didn't impress me, especially regarding its price. The long end seems quite weak. From f/5.6 on, it seems pretty descent though. I think it's overpriced for what you get.
Any idea when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 will be released? From the specs and price it seems to be in direct competition with the Nikkor 24-70, as it's almost as expensive (~1200 swiss francs, whereas the Nikkor is ~1500).
I wonder if the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM is not better than the old Nikkor 80-200. The Nikkor is still a little bit more expensive while having a shorter range and no OS. Why would you recommend the 80-200 over it?
With respect to the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 it is great on a D700, fine in the centre from f2.8 and sharp all through by 5.6. I like the colour rendering very much. I would look at the 24-120. I don't know where you got the info that it is not a great lense! It is every bit as sharp as a 24-70 and has a better focal range. I sold my 24-70 to get a 24-120. I agree with you on the 50 and 85mm AFS f1.8. They are great and not expensive. I use the 85mm AFD f1.8, which is optically as good and with an AF that is good enough for me.
Maybe wait for the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. It might be a very good choice if you really want a 24-70! If you need a 70-200, then buy the Nikon, either the 80-200 AFD, (new for 1000€) or the VRII. That is one area where I would not go "cheap"!
[/quote]
Indeed the 20mm f/2.8 seems nice.
There is also the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 that seems like a good value. Quite a few reports claim it's pretty descent. It can be had for ~$200 used, so it may be worth checking out.
From the test here, the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 didn't impress me, especially regarding its price. The long end seems quite weak. From f/5.6 on, it seems pretty descent though. I think it's overpriced for what you get.
Any idea when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 will be released? From the specs and price it seems to be in direct competition with the Nikkor 24-70, as it's almost as expensive (~1200 swiss francs, whereas the Nikkor is ~1500).
I wonder if the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM is not better than the old Nikkor 80-200. The Nikkor is still a little bit more expensive while having a shorter range and no OS. Why would you recommend the 80-200 over it?