New nikon zooms(14-24/24-70, etc..) used with film?

[DanielStone]

Hey guys,

How do these newer Nikon zooms compare to the primes in similar FL's? In particular the Nikon 14-24mm and the 24-70mm 2.8 zooms.

I'm generally a prime-lens kinda guy(shooting mostly LF), but I've heard that these new zooms are stellar with digital, but since we all know film is *better*(I shoot mostly E100G and Provia, and occasionally some b/w).

Only asking cause I have a few friends who own these lenses, and love them but since they're not "local" I can't really test them out.

thanks

-Dan

 

[CGW]

Check out the lens reviews at www.nikonlinks.com

Use primes but have shot the 35-70/2.8 and loved it. Assume you're shooting FF or have a body that supports G lenses?

 

[DanielStone]

I currently have a Nikon F4, and love it, but Nikon F5's are dirt cheap these days, and almost a dime a dozen so I'd save a few bux/day for a month or two to pick one up.

-Dan

 

[brucemuir]

F5's do certainly look juicy dont they
Whole different experience than most of my cameras but like you say, current climate affords us to explore many options we once could've only dreamed of.

All my AF stuff is Canon so I won't be going the AF route via Nikon anytime soon:devil:

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Check out the lens reviews at www.nikonlinks.com

Assume you're shooting FF or have a body that supports G lenses?

Did Nikon ever make non FF 35mm film bodies?? :confused:

 

[tkamiya]

The only negative I have with 24-70mm f/2.8 (the current one) is that on wide end, barrel distortion is quite hefty. Sharpness wise, I have no complaints. Since it is easily correctable in digital, I am guessing correcting for simple distortion (as compared to complex distortion) is less of a priority for Nikon engineers especially doing so may compromise something else.

I had a 14-24 for a few days.... It's extremely flare prone. If the sun is anywhere near the vertical plane of the lens, it can flare. Not necessary a unique problem with this lens but it wasn't for me, so I ended up returning it.

 

[brucemuir]

The only negative I have with 24-70mm f/2.8 (the current one) is that on wide end, barrel distortion is quite hefty. Sharpness wise, I have no complaints. Since it is easily correctable in digital, I am guessing correcting for simple distortion (as compared to complex distortion) is less of a priority for Nikon engineers especially doing so may compromise something else.

I had a 14-24 for a few days.... It's extremely flare prone. If the sun is anywhere near the vertical plane of the lens, it can flare. Not necessary a unique problem with this lens but it wasn't for me, so I ended up returning it.

There are many who feel the 14-24 is even better than the gold standard Zeiss 21 distagon

it is a huge lens, no?

 

[CGW]

Did Nikon ever make non FF 35mm film bodies?? :confused:

Check out the "OR."

 

[LJSLATER]

In my experience, film is much more forgiving than digital when it comes to "sharpness" and the various aberrations. I haven't used the newest high-end zooms, but I wouldn't have any qualms about using them with film where image quality is concerned.

My gripe with modern G Nikkors is the absence of an aperture ring, horrible manual focusing (some lenses are better than others in this regard though), and lazy focus/depth-of-field scales (this is a problem with many of the AF-D Nikkors also). I also think the G lenses are ugly. On the positive side, they are pretty much water-proof, which is cool.

I've successfully used G lenses on my F4, but in S and P modes only. AF-S works with the F4 but VR doesn't (I use poor-man's VR--a monopod).

 

[tkamiya]

There are many who feel the 14-24 is even better than the gold standard Zeiss 21 distagon

it is a huge lens, no?

I was AMAZED by its sharpness and also being THAT wide and having distortion at a manageable level. (yes, it does distort quite a bit on wide end but it's a 14mm!) I don't own Zeiss so I can't make comparison. I wouldn't doubt it though.

Yes, it is a HUGE lens... scary lens... If I stare at it too long, it might even say "Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that..." kind of lens. (Space Odyssey reference)

I dunno... it might take a special person to really make use of this lens - and that wasn't me.

 

[brucemuir]

I was AMAZED by its sharpness and also being THAT wide and having distortion at a manageable level. (yes, it does distort quite a bit on wide end but it's a 14mm!) I don't own Zeiss so I can't make comparison. I wouldn't doubt it though.

Yes, it is a HUGE lens... scary lens... If I stare at it too long, it might even say "Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that..." kind of lens. (Space Odyssey reference)

I dunno... it might take a special person to really make use of this lens - and that wasn't me.

I caught the Hal reference

 

[narsuitus]

I primarily shoot manual focus prime lenses on my film cameras and auto focus zoom lenses on my digital cameras. However, occasionally I will shoot my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 on my F4 and N70 because they do not need the aperture ring like my F2.

When I compared the image quality of my 14-24mm f/2.8 to my 18mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2 lenses, I was shocked to discover that, at the same f/stop and focal length, my new zoom had better image quality than my older Nikon manual focus prime lenses.

I have no idea how the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 compares to newer prime lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6179456359/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5224724863/

 

[sandermarijn]

I like the 50/1.4 G on my F65. I also have the 60/2.8 G with the Nano coating: great for digital colour, but a bit harsh on b&w film. YMMV.