msmoto said:
Oh, just for the heck of it, I will mention my old 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor, a "macro" lens..... Seems to do al right on some of my shots. Maybe a test on the new body is in order.

The "ED" version was/is much better than the old kit lenses. That is the one I have. They didn't make it for that long though as Digital became dominate about the same time as it's release. I picked it up for $150 so I just keep it. When I was creating user guides for equipment that was my primary lens. Small, light, close focus capabilities, and cheap. Never shot below 5.6 and the largest print was maybe a 4x6 and most were no larger than 2"x3" on the manuals. You don't need to spend $2,000 for that stuff.

Interesting topic/question/discussion here. I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC) for my Canon 40D. It had superb IQ and solid--if not slightly cheapo--build quality but for the coin I was very happy. When I bought the D7k, found an ultra cheap 28-75/2.8 online for $200. It had barely been used, but even with low use the focus ring (rubber and cheap) was loose. The IQ was ok. It never metered/exposed correctly or accurately with that body. I don't know. I hated it.

I have Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8. Love it. I think the new Tamron 24-70 VC is attractive at that price. The design looks eerily similar to the 28-75, and this would scare me. It's 2X as expensive as this new Nikon 24-85. Build quality will be a wash between those lenses. I expect the Nikon to have lower distortion, but not as sharp on the sides. Corners may be about the same. If the 24-85VR comes as kit w/D600, I will certainly have it. If it sux, I will sell it. Nikon has been on a roll with some tremendous value lenses lately and their R & D seems on top of its proverbial game. Look at the 50/1.8g($219); 85/1.8g($499) ; 28/1.8g ($699??). It's a good time to switch over completely to the 'ole Black and Gold for me. As an owner of the 50/1.8D & 85/1.8D, I will "upgrade" to the newer version of at least one of those.

@MikeWhis
I you look at the Nikon Rumors Photo A Day thread (PAD), I have posted a 28-300 sports snap. Its a slide into 3rd, its been cropped. It should give you an idea of the 28-300.

Thanks for the article reference. I had never actually considered that the cropping that occurs when moving from FX to DX is (of course) eliminating some light. While I have always applied the crop factor to understand the equivalent FX focal length, I had not considered the light loss asscoiated with the smaller sensor. It makes sense to me that a 35mm f/2.8 lens on a DX body will provide a (roughly) equivalent image and exposure as a 50mm f/4 will on an FX body. However, with a given lens and the same pixel pitch, isn't the same ammount of light hitting each pixel whether the sensor is DX or FX?

msmoto said:
Well, the article is about this magical word "Equivalence"

A couple of quotes from the article

"The DOF is the same for all systems for a given perspective, framing, aperture diameter, and display display size"

"Larger formats do not necessarily have a more shallow DOF than smaller formats"

What happens when we change formats is we enlarge the recorded image in the final product different amounts with each format. Thus, we are actually looking at different size images and changing the "equivalent" image.

In practice, shooting portraits with a 210mm lens on 4" X 5" vs. 85mm on an FX format, the final product may have similar appearing DOF, simply because we do not enlarge the out of focus parts of the image from the 4' X 5" image as much as the FX image when we produce an 8" X 10" image.

And, all these discussions are intellectually interesting, and in fact the statements are not right or wrong, simply different perspectives. My experience has driven me to the idea of shooting a lot of images, so easy with digital, then editing and discovering what I have attained, reshooting to expand the "keeper" techniques and attempting to learn. So nice to have different perspectives!

Yeah, it all depend what you set as the normal. 35mm is the norm for most manufacturers, and therefore all equivalence are based on it, to be more accurate and to be easier for comparison. Most often doesn't apply the crop factor on their f/stop, only their focal length. And yes, contrary to conventional opinions, all formats are almost equivalent. The main difference is the system, not the format.

Well, the article is about this magical word "Equivalence"

A couple of quotes from the article

"The DOF is the same for all systems for a given perspective, framing, aperture diameter, and display display size"

"Larger formats do not necessarily have a more shallow DOF than smaller formats"

What happens when we change formats is we enlarge the recorded image in the final product different amounts with each format. Thus, we are actually looking at different size images and changing the "equivalent" image.

In practice, shooting portraits with a 210mm lens on 4" X 5" vs. 85mm on an FX format, the final product may have similar appearing DOF, simply because we do not enlarge the out of focus parts of the image from the 4' X 5" image as much as the FX image when we produce an 8" X 10" image.

And, all these discussions are intellectually interesting, and in fact the statements are not right or wrong, simply different perspectives. My experience has driven me to the idea of shooting a lot of images, so easy with digital, then editing and discovering what I have attained, reshooting to expand the "keeper" techniques and attempting to learn. So nice to have different perspectives!

@tcole1983: I think they're muttering about differences of DOF on DX vs. FX.
That said, I could be very wrong.

Ah, yeah. Always remember to factor in crop factor for your f/stop too. Don't just apply it to your focal length, but your f/stop too. josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ Look at this. Good read.

Oh, just for the heck of it, I will mention my old 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor, a "macro" lens..... Seems to do al right on some of my shots. Maybe a test on the new body is in order.

But, the interesting aspect of what is on this thread is some confusion. The only factor in DOF, is focal length and f/stop. Period. The actual format has nothing to do with what the optical properties of the lens are. What we do with a larger format is to use a longer focal length lens to attain the same image size as on a smaller format. And the longer focal length has less DOF.

The "crop factor" is merely a description of changing formats. On 4" X 5" format, a 90mm lens is wide angle. If we crop down to a 1" x 1.5" we have a 90mm as a short telephoto. There is no f/stop change, no DOF change, simply the size of the image utilized off the "film plane" is different.

Ah well.... Listen to TTJ.... Omaha is the home of great steaks and good photo knowledge :)

Gabbb said:
It doesn't work that way (to my knowledge), but the whole topic is beyond mind-boggling.

I was reading on dpreview about this after it was brought up by Mikewhis...it appears that people think that F2.8 on DX doesn't equal F2.8 on FX. I think they have the whole concept wrong and were over complicating it because of the crop factor...F2.8 is the same on either body. The difference might be with the sensor and the amount of light it captures because the FX sensor is larger. It seems in that discussion people believed that because of the 1.5 crop factor that it was a different focal length and therefor not equal. From what I can understand that isn't the case...if you take the 24-70 F2.8 and put it on a FX and DX body the aperture is going to open the same...therefor F2.8 on either body is equal...and any difference would be in the sensor and its ability to capture light, I would assume larger sensor = more light maybe?

Now the discussion of it being F4.3 and dollar per whatever...I have no idea. I spent the money on my 17-55 and I love it so far :) I will put it up against any of the third party lenses.

Oh yeah and what Tao said...it isn't just the F2.8, but the quality of the lens and IMO the picture quality with the F2.8 lenses is superb. I thought my 18-200 was cool until I tried the F2.8 lenses...I am in love now and my pocket shows ;)

I don't quite follow the f4.3 thing. It sounds like a thought left short or a misunderstanding of crop factor vs. low light vs max f-stop.

I have the older 24-85mm ED 3.5-4.5 that I am surprised no one has mentioned. It is a very solid performer, even at macro work. From what I can tell, the design is very similar but greatly updated with the new tech that has came along. If it performs better than that - it will be a great compact lens for sure. Add a 70-300vr and you have a hell of a travel kit.

A couple of things to note that I have found:

VR is 10x better than f2.8 unless you are always shooting in the dark. Reason: You get VR at all F-stops and most images in good light or you want sharp are usually at f/5.6-11. The gain with VR is much greater than just 1/2-1 (or so) stop of light.

Add to that, if you are shooting groups, 2.8 usually leaves people out of focus and you end up stopping down anyway - that is usually where the trouble begins. VR - helps that.

Comparing this lens with Nikon's 24-70 is fruitless. Like comparing a Smart car with a Cadillac. Comparing it to the 24-120vr f4 - could be ok, but that is a "gold ring" lens which indicates better quality plus it is twice as much.

3-party: Tamron's 24-70VC is $1,300, Sigma's 2.8 is $800. Tamron's 28-75mm f 2.8 @ $500 is the only one that is an option if you are on a budget. But there again, the VR in my mind is worth the $100 more and the loss of a stop of light. Some like 3-party lenses and have good luck with them. Outside of Tokina or primes - I have not had good luck. For the most part, 3-party Pro glass is usually good.

One thing that is left out is that many times Nikon's bodies and software auto correct CAs and even vignetting where they do not with 3-party lenses. Not a huge thing, but nice and a bit of a time saver - especially if you have 1,000s of shots.

2.8 glass is desirable and yes many shoot it. Why? It is the most durable, most advanced, best glass, highest quality assurance, best internal parts, can withstand the elements and made for years of everyday use. The 2.8 is an added bonus in my mind and not the primary factor.

I'm willing to bet most shooters shoot at f4-f11 for the most part. At that point, the 2.8 doesn't mean much. So then comes the build quality, and Nikon's lower end glass is just as good as the 3-party pro glass in many cases. If you are on a budget and there happens to be a Nikon VR lens, with ED, that is also designed for video? If that doesn't fit the ticket, I'm not sure what would.

Paperman said:
Can you elaborate on this ?

FX has better low light performance - yes ... Focal length multiplied by crop factor - yes... No problems there.

But the rest ???

And how does FX has better low light performance even though the lens becomes f4.3 ??

It's in reverse dude.

Paperman said:
Can you elaborate on this ?

FX has better low light performance - yes ... Focal length multiplied by crop factor - yes... No problems there.

But the rest ???

And how does FX has better low light performance even though the lens becomes f4.3 ??

It doesn't work that way (to my knowledge), but the whole topic is beyond mind-boggling.

MikeWhis said:
Look, most of the time, people uses just the crop factor for focal length. You have to use it for it's f/stop too.

17-55mm/2.8 on DX is equivalent to 26-85mm/4.3 on FX.

Ever realise why FX has better low light performance? Ever realise why FX has shallower depth of field? It's not the sensor, but the lens.

Can you elaborate on this ?

FX has better low light performance - yes ... Focal length multiplied by crop factor - yes... No problems there.

But the rest ???

And how does FX has better low light performance even though the lens becomes f4.3 ??

MikeWhis said:
I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.

I would recommend going with Nikon glass. Good luck and happy shopping/shooting.

MikeWhis said:
I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.

Lol why did you ask then? You seem to know what you want or are looking for without anyone's help.

I would personally probably get the 24-85 and the 70-300 for the price of the 28-300. From what I have seen the 28-300 isn't stellar at much more then being a single lens option.

The Nikon 28-300 is a solid performer. It's not a pro 2.8, but it is very convenient. I spent the weekend shooting baseball and didn't want to lug the 200-400 in the hot sun. I used the 28-300 instead. It works well.

I'd stay with the Nikon glass. If you are shooting weddings etc and need a mid range zoom, the Nikon 24-70 is worth saving for. On the other hand, as has been suggested before, you can get a fast 50 and zoom with your feet.

In answer to your question, I'd get the new Nikon 24-85 over the non-Nikon.

I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.

golf007sd said:
Say what you will, there is just no substitute for the Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's focal length, speed, sharpness, build quality and performance, makes it Nikons best lens. Of the lenses I currently own, this bad-boy gets the most usage; hence, I never leave home without it.

If you can wait and save the money...then do yourself a favor and save up...it will put a smile on your face each time you hit the shutter button.

Cheers.

That's the point, I don't plan to spend that much money on a Nikon 2.8, that's why I'm choosing these two.

Gabbb said:
This is not the first time I see this math and I'm not sure if I get it. Care to elaborate?

Look, most of the time, people uses just the crop factor for focal length. You have to use it for it's f/stop too.

17-55mm/2.8 on DX is equivalent to 26-85mm/4.3 on FX.

Ever realise why FX has better low light performance? Ever realise why FX has shallower depth of field? It's not the sensor, but the lens.

Say what you will, there is just no substitute for the Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's focal length, speed, sharpness, build quality and performance, makes it Nikons best lens. Of the lenses I currently own, this bad-boy gets the most usage; hence, I never leave home without it.

If you can wait and save the money...then do yourself a favor and save up...it will put a smile on your face each time you hit the shutter button.

Cheers.

MikeWhis said:
Here's something I found out. Sigma's 2.8 and Nikon's 2.8 has similar image quality, with Nikon slightly better, and much larger (excluding flare, which I don't see any good tests). The Tamron is slightly worse than Nikon and Sigma for the non-VC version, but slightly cheaper, for the VC version, most likely it's image quality is going to be slightly worse.
I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.

Huh? How does the 24-85 have an advantage over the F2.8 lens? Did you mean the other way around? I just got the 17-55 and obviously it isn't an FX lens, but so far it seems to knock the pants off any of the other variable aperture lenses I have tried.

I think it is hard to compare Nikon pro lenses as they fall into a whole different category from even the best 3rd party lenses. The price is usually double, but build quality is always top notch and so is performance.

MikeWhis said:

I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.

This is not the first time I see this math and I'm not sure if I get it. Care to elaborate?

Good points guys its smart doing the research and shopping in todays market. After all we are in what Outdoor Photography Magazine calls the "Golden Age" of lens technology.

SkintBrit said:
I wouldn't rule out the third party lens, very few offer the same optical performance as their OEM brothers, but some come close and can be significantly cheaper. As has been recommended here, I'd wait till I saw the MTF results and some reviews on both, then make up my mind. It's a tough one for sure, a 2.8 for the price of a slower variable aperture lens, is certainly tempting.

Here's something I found out. Sigma's 2.8 and Nikon's 2.8 has similar image quality, with Nikon slightly better, and much larger (excluding flare, which I don't see any good tests). The Tamron is slightly worse than Nikon and Sigma for the non-VC version, but slightly cheaper, for the VC version, most likely it's image quality is going to be slightly worse.
I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.

I wouldn't rule out the third party lens, very few offer the same optical performance as their OEM brothers, but some come close and can be significantly cheaper. As has been recommended here, I'd wait till I saw the MTF results and some reviews on both, then make up my mind. It's a tough one for sure, a 2.8 for the price of a slower variable aperture lens, is certainly tempting.