Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Originally Posted by perplex
But they're not even the equivalent of each other, so you can't compare. That's like saying 70-200 f/2.8 is worse than the 200 f/2.
Well there is some overlap between the 2 zooms in question. You could compare them in the same ranges.
People compare 70-200 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2 and 200 f/2 + 1.4x TC vs. 300 2.8 and 200 f2 + 2x TC vs. 200-400 f/4. It's always relevant for comparision if the range is useful to you because it's an option.
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
Ah, I think my point is getting lost within the arguments and technicalities.
I agree with Iron_Dreamer. When cost is a factor, a 3rd party lens can be a very nice alternative to the brand lens. Just look at how many people have a Sigma tele macro lens.
If cost is not so much a factor, the brand lens is the better choice compared to a 3rd party lens more times than not (from what I've seen and heard). There are exceptions, and there are cases where it may be one subtle difference, but in general, I'd place my money on the brand lens.
That's my main statement.
It's silly really, because it doesn't have to be this way. However, that's how it seems to be.
I agree with you that "more times than not" the Nikkor is the best choice. And the Nikkor 12-24 is a very good lens. If the Tokina wasn't a better lens in this case, I'd be buying the Nikkor and I'd be satisfied with it. But at the same settings (f stop and fielding) the Tokina is sharper. On top of that it's a full stop faster. It's a better quality lens than Nikkor's equivalent wide zoom, regardless of cost. Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? It pays to consider third party lenses.
Well there is some overlap between the 2 zooms in question. You could compare them in the same ranges.
People compare 70-200 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2 and 200 f/2 + 1.4x TC vs. 300 2.8 and 200 f2 + 2x TC vs. 200-400 f/4. It's always relevant for comparision if the range is useful to you because it's an option.
Sure but you have to specifically state you're talking about those ranges, and not just make a general statement that a certain lens is better than the other.
Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good?
Resale value might be considered a reason for some. Nikon lenses usually hold their value better ( sometimes considerably better ) than any third party manufacturer's lenses.
I agree with you however....most of my lenses are Nikon, but I do own and use the Tokina 12-24 and a Sigma EX 180 macro because I couldn't justify the additional expense of the equivalent Nikons vs. quality differences, and if this new ultra-wide Tokina is as sharp as it appears, IMO it would be a no-brainer over the slower and more expensive Nikon.
IIRC, the founders of Tokina are all ex-Nikon people, by the way.
__________________
I wondered why the golf ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
So - assuming budget isn't an issue - I should go for the Nikon? Of course, I just now realized that the lens is of DX variety; which poses a potential problem as I plan to upgrade to a full frame DSLR sometime in the future. Still, I could settle for a cropped field of view (assuming future D3 like cameras have this feature) - but are there any full frame alternatives with a similar focal lenght?
P.S. I like the feel and image quality of the 24-70, but it's a little too expensive at its current price - and I don't think 28-70 is a particularly useful range on the D200.
__________________ Main Rig: Kenwood DP-1100II CDP -> Heath AP-2510 Preamplifier -> MAD EAR+ HD -> Grado RS-1's Photo-Fi: Nikon D200 - 35mm f/2D - 85mm f/1.8D - 80mm-200mm f/2.8D
Tell me about the Sigma EX 150. I'm lens shopping right now and that may be something I could use.
Sorry, I meant 180mm. I don't do much macro shooting but what attracted me to this lens was it's 1:1 capability and the fact that unlike most macro lenses, you don't have to get as close to isolate your subject from it's surroundings. It's very solid and well built ( I like "heavy", although I know many people don't.). Also, it's an HSM model (internal motor) which provides quick and quiet focussing....although most macro shots would usually demand some manual tweaking.
Linear Mode
