Between 24-85 + 70-300 and 28-300, which one would you recommend? Is there any difference in picture quality? Thanks
1872895
This is a full frame camera. I'd pick a lens which opens wide. ... preferably F 2.8 or 1.8...You'll get a good foreground isolation / background blur with these lenses. For example, the 24-70mm F2.8 or the 50 mm F/1.4. Then again, if you intend to use this for travel etc., Any of the lenses you have here are good. My personal preference would be the 28-300.. Just because of the range.
1872896
I carefully evaluated all of the Nikon zoom lenses prior to purchasing the D610. Partially at the recommendation of Ken Rockwell, the highly regarded DSLR expert, I selected the Nikon 28-300 AF-S 1.35-5.6 G zoom lens. It replaces both of the zoom lenses that you are considering. In Ken Rockwell's testing he found that the 28-300 provided excellent color balance and linearity out to the corners of the image. When I was ready to buy the Nikon D610 and a Nikon 28-300 zoom I found a bundle of the D610, the 28-300, a Nikon camera case and a 32 GB SD card all packaged together BY NIKON at a price slightly below the best price for the D610 camera body and the Nikon 28-300. I bought the bundle and I am VERY happy with the purchase. I also purchased a Nikon 1.4 50mm fixed lense. The combination of the D610 and the two lenses is producing spectacular photographs for me. Good luck.
1872897
I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the... » Read More I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. « Show Less
1872898
I ordered mine with the 24-120 f4, for a walk-around prime lens. The 24-85 is a good choice, too. As for the other zooms you mentioned, it depends entirely what type of photography you are going to do. The 80 to 200 f2.8 is a very good lens - it's expensive, tho. The other zooms are fine, but the quality seems to go up with the price. Also, go to dpreview.com and find their test info on the lenses you want. They are a great source for valid info on all things digital...both cameras and lenses. I love my D610.
305771
Image quality if very good and exceeds any other zoom I have at 28mm... but primes will generally outperform zooms at their given lengths. Also, the 28-300 shows significant distortion with edge softness at 28mm and will not perform well in low light, whereas the 28 1.8 is strong on both fronts. The 28 1.8 produces good and completely usable images at 1.8 and razor sharp images starting at 2.8 from my experience.
2238318
hey natasha did you actually compare between hd66 and gt720??? my education guess is gt720 probably have better picture quality because it can throw very short distance so it will produce better picture color and sharpness. for example 50 inch screen picture is better than 180 inch screen for projecting.
1630106
Thanks a lot Mark, that surely makes a great feedback for me, really appreciated.If i read you well, i think i will go for the 70-300 IS USM, provided i can be confident Portrait Blurring is solved once for all.On another note, is it true that the 70-300 has background blur (nice effect) due to some magnetic field ... ! ! and finally, is it true you cannot use a polarizer on.how much would you sell your 70-300 ?thanks for the support,Emile-.
972591
I have the 48" model and I am very happy with the picture quality. Decent amount of picture options to adjust to get an optimal picture. I'm very happy with my purchase!
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1514948
hi, i have a similar size room, tried 26, 32 , and 37 inch. 32 is best. one thing not talked about often is, there's also a minimum viewing distance for these tvs, esp. 720p. any closer, you see the pixels, any noise in the image, etc. with a hq tv like samsung, sony, sharp, my experiments indicate for a 32" around 5 feet is about as close as i'd want to go. anything else, i'd have to go to 1080p (the sharp 32" aquos 1080p model is great up to 3 feet, but more $$). btw, right now you can pick up a samsung LN-T3242H at circuit city for $720 if you're a AAA member (you need to go to www.aaa.com/circuitcity to get a coupon code). this model is a level down from the 3253H but i picked one up yesterday and so far it seems pretty good to me. you can read about both models on amazon. good luck.
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
597331
Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105? Despite the relative ratio differences it seems as though the 24-105 is so much more of lens for not much more money. Any thoughts?
102791
Don't fool around. Go with the 28-300mm. Less lens changes and it just the perfect walk around lens. I know, I've been shooting for 35 years.
1625587
Most reviews I have seen give the 11-16 a bit of an advantage in image quality, especially at f/4. The range of 12-24 would be an advantage to me.
109971
I Think the throw rate is less than the 72. Ive been wondering if i'll get the same BIG pic with the 85 HD as i do with my 72. when i zoom out with the 72 i get a picture that fills the entire wall.(look up moviemate72 to see my close encounter pics) does anyone know if mm85 get that big?
1259399
Go with the 20. I owned both, and kept the 20. It takes super photos, and is much less shake-sensitive with max telephoto. The 30 advertises more MP, but the sensor's the same size, and crowding does NOT improve resolution. That's why full frame sensor unitrs cost $3K+.
1784428
I use my 24-70 for just about everthing, it is a great lens. I have done portraits, events, weddings and my own stuff while on vacations. Your only other real alternatives are primes. (85mm, 50mm and the 70-200mm) The pics come out of the 24-70 really sharp, the bokeh is great and the contrast is really eye opening if you have metered your shots correctly... Hope this helps..Phil
873523
If you're going to take many photos of people you might want to go the 18-140. It is better for portraits. The 55-300 is awesome for scenery but its tough to use for close personal shots.
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
1790370
I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300 would be more suited. I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300... » Read More I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300 would be more suited. « Show Less