bfreas
Premium
join:2001-06-16
Franklin, KY
 ·Comcast
| reply to UnaFragger
Re: [Lens] f/2.8 wide to normal zoom for Nikon
I'd lean a little more toward the 17-50. There's a huge difference between a starting point of 17 and 24 on the wide end. If the aquariums and museums are as tight quarters as I think, you'll wish you had the wider lens.
--
My Gallery Site
Sunny 16 Camera Club |
|
Kringle
Dr.D
Premium
join:2004-02-27
Pierrefonds, QC
 ·Bell Sympatico
| I found that the 24mm wide end was pretty good in all kinds of museum situations. The aquariums, however, might be a different story.
My suggestion was based on the stated need for macro and general purpose indoor shooting. For what I do, 50 would be too short a tele end and I'd be stuck supplementing with another lens. What's the distortion like at 17mm? |
|
bfreas
Premium
join:2001-06-16
Franklin, KY
·Comcast
| said by Kringle  :What's the distortion like at 17mm? Photozone's tests show that it has about average distortions for a lens in that focal length range. Pronounced barrel distortions at 17 and moderate pincusion at 50. Here's the review:
»www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a···--review
--
My Gallery Site
Sunny 16 Camera Club |
|
Kringle
Dr.D
Premium
join:2004-02-27
Pierrefonds, QC
·Bell Sympatico
2 edits | Thanks for that link! Looks like a very decent lens. From what I can see, the main differences are:
17-50
More plastic in construction (upside = a bit lighter to carry)
7 blade iris
Close focus = 1:4.5
24-70
Construction comparable to Canon "L" pro glass
9 blade iris
Close focus = 1:3.8 (better for macro)
Less Chromatic aberration than the 17-50
The differing number of iris blades will change the look of the diffraction sparkles in night shots ( »dptnt.com/2007/12/what-causes-th···-photos/ ) and, subjectively, the bokeh isn't quite as smooth with the 17-50.
Both lenses seem like very good choices and the final conclusion will obviously boil down to the intended applications versus total cost. |
|
