11-15-2012, 02:15 PM
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1352985428' post='20978']
Well, the appeal of 24-xx zooms is that if you have FF *and* crop cameras, it will be perfectly usable on both, while 35-xx would be pretty useless on crop. I have the aforementioned 24-85mm VR, and while it's definitely not the sharpest lens on FF, on D300 it behaves surprisingly well - really can't complain about the corners @ f/5.6.
[/quote]
I can't disagree with the DX usage part (if one owns both DX and FX bodies) because I never used my older 24-85mm on DX. But I personally think that 24 is not wide enough and 70 is not long enough in FX. Coming back to 24-85mm on DX, I can't help thinking about a hypothetical 35-85mm f/2.8 on DX (53-130mm equivalent)... Yes, the DoF would not be shallow enough as the 50mm and 85mm primes, but still a good FL range for not-so-serious portraits and same is valid for FX actually... + still a good match with wide angle zooms on FX...
Serkan
Well, the appeal of 24-xx zooms is that if you have FF *and* crop cameras, it will be perfectly usable on both, while 35-xx would be pretty useless on crop. I have the aforementioned 24-85mm VR, and while it's definitely not the sharpest lens on FF, on D300 it behaves surprisingly well - really can't complain about the corners @ f/5.6.
[/quote]
I can't disagree with the DX usage part (if one owns both DX and FX bodies) because I never used my older 24-85mm on DX. But I personally think that 24 is not wide enough and 70 is not long enough in FX. Coming back to 24-85mm on DX, I can't help thinking about a hypothetical 35-85mm f/2.8 on DX (53-130mm equivalent)... Yes, the DoF would not be shallow enough as the 50mm and 85mm primes, but still a good FL range for not-so-serious portraits and same is valid for FX actually... + still a good match with wide angle zooms on FX...
Serkan