What makes this lense so good?

Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
I shot about 200 shots this weekend with my 2.8 70-200VR and also with my kit lens (albeit very little, in comparison)....what is the huge difference in the way these two lenses are able to process a shot? I know the kit lens isnt as fast and doesnt have VR but holy vibration reduction, batman, what a difference in the two....(and i love the kit lens)....what makes this lense give that much better shot? im asking because i'd like a lower end version of it (if it exists)..thx. (sorry for the duplicate, uncle frank)
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,475
Location
Live in Ohio but from NJ
Like most quality glass you'll find exceptional sharpness stopped down only 1-2 clicks and great wide open, superior contrast and color, and sweet bokeh. In my experience great glass has this "light sucking" capability where it seems like it's pulling light onto the sensor. :)

Here's an example shot with the finest lens I currently own - Canon 135L f2. Keep in mind this is wide open and hand held with a quick moving toddler. The sharpness still exceeds a lesser lens stopped down. This was also shot midday under dappled light. The lens did an exceptional job of pulling detail out of his eyes - shaded by his cap. The bokeh is also pretty amazing - so creamy it doesn't look real. I can also use this lens for indoor sports at f2 with ISO 1600 allowing action freezing shutter speeds.

Sensors may come and go but great glass is immortal. :D

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,714
Location
Westlake Village, Ca. and 20 mi NW of Prescott, Az
Joe Marques said:
Like most quality glass you'll find exceptional sharpness stopped down only 1-2 clicks and great wide open, superior contrast and color, and sweet bokeh. In my experience great glass has this "light sucking" capability where it seems like it's pulling light onto the sensor. :)

Here's an example shot with the finest lens I currently own - Canon 135L f2. Keep in mind this is wide open and hand held with a quick moving toddler. The sharpness still exceeds a lesser lens stopped down. This was also shot midday under dappled light. The lens did an exceptional job of pulling detail out of his eyes - shaded by his cap. The bokeh is also pretty amazing - so creamy it doesn't look real. I can also use this lens for indoor sports at f2 with ISO 1600 allowing action freezing shutter speeds.

Sensors may come and go but great glass is immortal. :D
....
Joe

That's an awesome pic! :D

The C 135mm F2 would be the very first lens on a Canon in my hands. I've even considered (seriously) getting a Canon body just so I could use that lens. It's frustrating that Canon lenses can't be used on Nikon bodies (like Nikon can on Canon). :cry:

Regards
JohnG
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,475
Location
Live in Ohio but from NJ
yahtzee said:
so any recommendations in the Nikon line?
The 85 1.4 is the finest Nikon lens I ever used. The 50 1.8 is great and at $100 should be in every camera bag. The 135DCf2 is a special lens although the defocus control can be tricky (search for Dirk Vermiere on pbase for some excellent shots with the 135).

Regards,

Joe
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,475
Location
Live in Ohio but from NJ
Johnnymg said:
Joe Marques said:
Like most quality glass you'll find exceptional sharpness stopped down only 1-2 clicks and great wide open, superior contrast and color, and sweet bokeh. In my experience great glass has this "light sucking" capability where it seems like it's pulling light onto the sensor. :)

Here's an example shot with the finest lens I currently own - Canon 135L f2. Keep in mind this is wide open and hand held with a quick moving toddler. The sharpness still exceeds a lesser lens stopped down. This was also shot midday under dappled light. The lens did an exceptional job of pulling detail out of his eyes - shaded by his cap. The bokeh is also pretty amazing - so creamy it doesn't look real. I can also use this lens for indoor sports at f2 with ISO 1600 allowing action freezing shutter speeds.

Sensors may come and go but great glass is immortal. :D
....
Joe

That's an awesome pic! :D

The C 135mm F2 would be the very first lens on a Canon in my hands. I've even considered (seriously) getting a Canon body just so I could use that lens. It's frustrating that Canon lenses can't be used on Nikon bodies (like Nikon can on Canon). :cry:

Regards
JohnG
Thanks John. :) My biggest worry switching brands was missing the 85 1.4D, thankfully the 135L is in the same league. :) I was surprised to learn that I can use the 135 with my TC making it a very useful sports lens at 190 2.8 - and a crop factor equivalent of ~300 2.8.

BTW, have you considered the Nikon 135DCf2? I think it might be on par with the Canon lens.

Regards,

Joe
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,714
Location
Westlake Village, Ca. and 20 mi NW of Prescott, Az
Joe Marques said:
Thanks John. :) My biggest worry switching brands was missing the 85 1.4D, thankfully the 135L is in the same league. :) I was surprised to learn that I can use the 135 with my TC making it a very useful sports lens at 190 2.8 - and a crop factor equivalent of ~300 2.8.

BTW, have you considered the Nikon 135DCf2? I think it might be on par with the Canon lens.

Regards,

Joe
Not really................. I've seen numerous posts indicating that the Nikon 135 DC isn't quite as "sweet" as the 105 DC. I'm not brave enough to buy one and try. :lol:

One the other hand, I've read good things about the older Nikon 135's so I'm looking for one of those. They are relatively inexpensive and I have had GREAT results from a couple of older Ai/Aia manual Nikon lenses.

FWIW: Since I have very good discipline I haven't ordered a 1D Mark II and 135L. Not a 'funds' issue............ I just haven't learned the Nikon stuff good enough to justify complicating my learing curve even more. :oops: Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind a few times though. My goal in life.......... hahaha.......... is to get that Canon setup and also keep all of my Nikon gear. :lol:

Regards
JohnG
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
145
Location
SF Bay Area
Excellent shot Joe!

I'll not measurebate the C v. N issue since it's always the eye behind the lens that makes the difference, regardless of the equipment used.

Nice work.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
195
Location
New York City
Joe Marques said:
The 135DCf2 is a special lens although the defocus control can be tricky (search for Dirk Vermiere on pbase for some excellent shots with the 135).
Johnnymg said:
Not really................. I've seen numerous posts indicating that the Nikon 135 DC isn't quite as "sweet" as the 105 DC. I'm not brave enough to buy one and try.
Actually, Dirk uses the 105 DC (not 135 DC) as probably his favorite lens -- and yes, he makes wonderful use of that lens. :D You can see his photos on pbase over here:

http://www.pbase.com/dievee

Unfortunately, he doesn't usually keep the EXIF data for web display (nor does he display photos all that large, if you want to check closely for sharpness, etc), but you can probably assume most photos that have a medium telephoto look used the 105 DC, especially the candids and some portraits. Most shots probably used the Fuji S2Pro w/ some newer ones w/ S3Pro (and maybe D2X, if he finally received his), and pretty much all shot in JPEG -- not RAW. :D

I highly recommend taking a tour of his galleries even if you're not interested in the 105 DC -- he's one big reason why I decided to buy a DSLR over a year ago (and also not worry so much about brand debates as "Equipment is not the issue. Vision is everything."). :D

_Man_
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
yahtzee said:
I shot about 200 shots this weekend with my 2.8 70-200VR and also with my kit lens (albeit very little, in comparison)....what is the huge difference in the way these two lenses are able to process a shot? I know the kit lens isnt as fast and doesnt have VR but holy vibration reduction, batman, what a difference in the two....(and i love the kit lens)....what makes this lense give that much better shot? im asking because i'd like a lower end version of it (if it exists)..thx. (sorry for the duplicate, uncle frank)
Hehehe. Still looking for a way out, yahtzee :p? I'm going to re-post the reply I made to you on dpr.

You've just begun a long slide down the slippery slope to financial ruin, Yahtzee. You've
contracted an incurable illness called Lens Lust Disease. If you had just left well enough alone, and bought
a 70-300 to complement your 18-70, you'd have had a delightful time taking pictures. But once you
bought the 70-200, your fate was sealed. It's not the VR that makes the lens magic... it's the optics. So don't
think the affordable 24-120VR will solve your problems. It's just another of Nikon's excellent consumer lenses.
No, you've developed a taste for Pro glass, you poor soul.

The only choices for a normal range zoom that will match up with the 70-200 are the dreadfully expensive
17-55/2.8 or the even more expensive 28-70/2.8. Each of them has the same touch of magic, and the only
reason for chosing one over the other is your focal length preference. I went for the 28-70 because of my
concentration on event photography, but it's good at everything... from landscapes, to florals, and candids,
to portraits. Here's some examples.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 9699
View attachment 9700
View attachment 9701

I hope you're single or have an understanding wife, because your hobby is about to get very expensive :twisted:.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Uncle Frank said:
yahtzee said:
I shot about 200 shots this weekend with my 2.8 70-200VR and also with my kit lens (albeit very little, in comparison)....what is the huge difference in the way these two lenses are able to process a shot? I know the kit lens isnt as fast and doesnt have VR but holy vibration reduction, batman, what a difference in the two....(and i love the kit lens)....what makes this lense give that much better shot? im asking because i'd like a lower end version of it (if it exists)..thx. (sorry for the duplicate, uncle frank)
Hehehe. Still looking for a way out, yahtzee :p? I'm going to re-post the reply I made to you on dpr.

You've just begun a long slide down the slippery slope to financial ruin, Yahtzee. You've
contracted an incurable illness called Lens Lust Disease. If you had just left well enough alone, and bought
a 70-300 to complement your 18-70, you'd have had a delightful time taking pictures. But once you
bought the 70-200, your fate was sealed. It's not the VR that makes the lens magic... it's the optics. So don't
think the affordable 24-120VR will solve your problems. It's just another of Nikon's excellent consumer lenses.
No, you've developed a taste for Pro glass, you poor soul.

The only choices for a normal range zoom that will match up with the 70-200 are the dreadfully expensive
17-55/2.8 or the even more expensive 28-70/2.8. Each of them has the same touch of magic, and the only
reason for chosing one over the other is your focal length preference. I went for the 28-70 because of my
concentration on event photography, but it's good at everything... from landscapes, to florals, and candids,
to portraits. Here's some examples.

I hope you're single or have an understanding wife, because your hobby is about to get very expensive :twisted:.
About to? Ha...not single but as long as my wife continues to see a few black lenses, all is good......lol
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
714
Location
Fremont, CA, USA
Oh boy, you are done for :(

I have a similar setup like yours. I was post processing some photos taken over the weekend, some snapshots and I see this:

Kit lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


70-200 VR:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


All I know is the VR shot has something *out* of the world going for it. I really like my kit lens, but having a lens like the 70-200 VR sucks :(. You are so used to high quality photos from this lens, you are not going to look back.

Phil and UF have mentioned some good lenses and reasons, the only lens I can think off is the 17-35 f/2.8 lens which many seem to prefer over the 17-55 f/2.8 lens.

Oh well, good luck. Pray for a jackpot!

anand
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
191
Location
Northern , New Jersey USA
I agree Frank, the 28-70 2.8 is a great lens, very versatile. Some say that the digital 1x factor even makes it better. I find myself keeping it on the camera a lot. Now what do I do with my 17-35? I just bought the 12-24, OH the possibilities! CS Dayan
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom