On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:01:06 GMT, "Webmarketing"
>Hi, David. I agree with you on the comparison to the 28 (I don't think
>Nikon has really ever made a good 28 except for the PC Nikkor)
Well, actually, there have been two excellent 28mm
MF lenses in addition to the two 28 PCs, the AIS f2.8
and the AI-AIS f3.5 (both good wide-open - see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html).
>but my
>experience with the 24 is a little different from yours. I've always
>considered my 24~120 to be an excellent zoom and it is one of only two I
>ever use. But mine has slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm than the
>prime and has slightly less contrast as well. At f5.6, though, I would
>consider them to be roughly equal in terms of corner resolution but you have
>to consider that the prime opens up a bit wider.
The 24 (I have had several) is excellent by f5.6,
but somewhat soft in the corners wider, especially
at f2.8 - the 24-120 at f3.5 is sharp to the corners,
though (good sample). The 24 also has considerable
distortion away from the edge of the frame, but it
does become very low as the edges are approached
(shoot a grid with it sometime, if you want to see
how much distortion the 24 has...;-).
>Perhaps you had a better
>sample than I did. It is a truly exceptional zoom, though, particularly
>when you consider the 5X range and I wouldn't hesitate to use it at 24mm for
>anything that didn't need the speed of the prime. Take care.
Since the zoom is good at f3.5, and the 24 requires
f5.6 to improve the corners, the zoom is effectively
faster for my use...
Thanks for the comments.
>Fred
>The Good Gourmet
>http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
Alas, my cooking skills and knowledge extend only
so far as the can-opener and microwave timer dial...;-)
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d5f6fa4.17594450@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:07:34 GMT, "SimRacer"
>>
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
>> >news:3d59ed28.18245791@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:43:19 GMT, "Steve"
>> >>
>> >> >I'm hoping one of you can help me decide between these
>> >> >lenses... I recently invested in a better long zoom (80-200
>> >> >f2.8), and now want to replace my "everyday" lens (I think)
>> >> >with either the 24-120 or 24-85 f2.8-4. I presently have the
>> >> >28-105, and while it's a nice lens, I would like to have
>> >> >either a bit more range or the extra stop... and I can't
>> >> >really decide which is most important to me- probably
>> >> >depends on what day you ask.
>> >> >
>> >> >Between some lens tests that I've found and the 80-200's
>> >> >overlap, my gut tells me that I should lean toward the
>> >> >24-85... but I'm wondering if one of you has already gone
>> >> >through this and would like to share your decision.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course, with the 24-85 AF-S out there now, I'm even more
>> >> >confused...
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks in advance for your help!!
>> >> The 24-120 is an excellent zoom (good samples are
>> >> sharp to the corners wide-open), and not much slower
>> >> at the same FLs than the 24-85 f2.8-4...
>> >Given all the responses about similar performance in the two 24-X zooms
>> >discussed here, would it not stand to reason the for overal clairty and
>> >optical performance that a smaller range zoom like a 24-85 would be
>better
>> >than a 24-120? I thought conventional thinking said the smaller the zoom
>> >range, the better the optical performance should be...is this not the
>reason
>> >primes are still around?
>> *****--> IN GENERAL <--***** this is true, but *in
>> particular*, there are many poor-to-so-so 2X zooms
>> out there, and quite a few really top-quality
>> wider-range zooms, too... In the case of the
>> 24-120, it actually performs *better* at 24mm
>> than the excellent 24mm f2.8 Nikkor MF/AF non-zoom,
>> and better than the AF 28mm f2.8 Nikkor. The 35 and
>> up Nikkors are generally so good, though, that the
>> zoom, while excellent 35->120, is not up to the
>> superb non-zooms in this range. In other words, from
>> 24mm almost to 120mm, the Nikkor zoom is *really* good,
>> and no apologies need be made for its use if speed
>> is not an issue...
>> David Ruether