Lens question

[jgana]

Has anyone had experience with the AF Zoom Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF Autofocus Lens for taking aquarium pictures? It has a macro function. Comparisons to prime macros? Alternative lens thoughts? (I have a nikon body).

Phyllis, I saw in one thread you mentioned that a sigma lens is not a true macro and recommended the 105 prime instead. Would that hold for this one too?

Thanks

 

[Phyl]

Interesting lens by the description. Here's an excerp of a review I found HERE:

The new Nikon IF AF 24-85/f2.8-4D Zoom Nikkor is Nikon’s first f2.8 variable aperture zoom lens. Nikon has long been famous for their constant f2.8 aperture “high end” pro level zoom lenses. This is the first lens from Nikon that compromises on that very successful formula. Variable aperture zooms are cheaper, lighter, and simpler to manufacture. The maximum aperture at 85mm is f4.0, which is still relatively fast and should be fine for outdoor travel images, general landscape, environmental portraits, and street shooting. Additionally, the new 24-85 has some hidden talents that bear mentioning. When the macro mode is engaged, the lens becomes a 35-85mm lens that focuses continuously from infinity to 1:2 (half-life size on the film) at the long end @ 8.5 inches. Center sharpness in the macro range is excellent at all apertures except f2.8. The enhanced macro capabilities add a significant extra value to an already versatile performer.

Looks like it only goes 1:2 (half life size) rather than 1:1 (life size), but if it brings it into your budget it would make a good compromise, especially since you could also use it as an all around lens where you can't do that with the 105. HTH!

 

[jgana]

Thank you. So if it is a 1:2 half life image, but it zooms to 85, where 50 mm is life size (or "half" in the case of this lens on macro mode), does that mean that at the longer end of the zoom it would be 85/50 * 1/2 ...or .85 ie. 85% life size rather than "half" life size? Or am I misunderstanding? I'm newish to the digital film world; would this half life concept be further impacted by whether the image sensor on the camera body is APS or DX or full frame size (I have a D200)? Or by the number of megapixels of resolution the body is capable of?

Also does the aperture constraint at the high end of the zoom (f4)for this lens sound workable for aquarium shots (it seems to me that the struggle is with both light and depth of field on most shots)?

I like that its more versatile and affordable, but don't want to be disappointed that I can't get the shots I want and should have waited for something better.

Thanks again!

 

[Phyl]

You're misunderstanding. The best you can do is get 1/2 life size at the optimal focal length/distance from subject. When you are outside of those parameters (I don't know what they are for that specific lens), you will get less than life size.

With the D200 there's enough crop space if the image is sharp enough that you could MAKE it lifesize.

The aperature constraint isn't really a problem because rarely are you trying to take macro photos (unless you like the sport of shooting fish) where you need all the speed of 2.8. Most of the time for corals you'll be looking for that depth of field at F11+.

If you want the best you'll get the 105. But if you need an all around lens anyway (what are you currently using for the 17-70 range?) then it is a good stop gap until you get the bucks behind you for the 105. If you already have the 24-70 or 17-55 then you'll probably want to wait and get the 105. HTH.

 

[jgana]

Thank you. Thats very helpful. I do need a walk around lens, I'm kind of starting from scratch. (Had full nikon equipment when young that was all stolen during a break-in a very long time ago, then had a Canon film SLR but had breakdowns in both a lens and eventually the body --not bashing canon, know they make good equipment, I just probably had bad luck-- been out of the hobby for a while, now recently purchased the D200). The first lens I've bought is the nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 for its versatility and affordability (crazy that "affordable" is still hundreds and hundreds of dollars!), though its light/speed shortcomings and occasional softness at longer zoom are sometimes disappointing. I might replaced it with a faster more limited telephoto down the road, not sure. I use it for wildlife/nature and kids portraits/sport activities.

So I thought I would need both a walk around in the 18-80ish range, and seperately a macro as next lenses sooner or later. And thats when I came across this combo lens.

Seperately, from perusing the site it seems I missed a great presentation on aquarium photography! Are the slides available online or email?

Thanks again for the info and help!

 

[Phyl]

The presentation is about 80mb so impractical to transmit over the internet. If you're not doing anything on the 18th of January I'll be giving it in Baltimore, lol.

If you're not happy with the 70-300 then do yourself a favor and make sure that this lens is comperable to the 17-55 or 24-70. I haven't read any reviews on it by the industry standards so I can't comment on its ability to be sharp. I've owned both the 17-55 (which I have since sold) and the 24-70 now and they are stellar. I do prefer the 70-300 over the 70-200 for portability, but when I want tack sharp I go with the 70-200. I have no love loss for the 55-200 nor the 18-55 (standard kit lenses). Unfortunately photography is one hobby where you tend to get what you pay for. While there are a few diamonds in the rough, the odds don't support it.

 

[jgana]

Funny. Believe it or not I WILL be in Baltimore that weekend! I'm there a few times a year. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to fit in a listen-in on the presentation that day though. Bummer.

Thanks again.

Jorge

 

[Phyl]

LOL. That's pretty funny.