Todd wrote:
>The 24-120 has been reported in this forum to have noticeable distortion
>(of a complex, "mustache" variety), so I would therefore rule it out. I
>shoot with the 24-50 extensively. It has noticeable barrel distortion
>on the 24mm end (many lay people won't notice it, but a photographer
>will). Still and all, the lens is a favorite of mine for features /
>weight / price.
>
>I also shoot with the 35-70 f/2.8, and I've not noticed significant
>distortion there. It is one of the few zooms that are in the same class
>with the 80-200 f/2.8 (Which Roger will get eventually). If quality and
>speed are your aim, my money is on the 35-70 f/2.8 and a 24mm f/2.8
>prime lens. You need to sort out which one comes first.
The 'moustache' distortion noted is typical for _ALL_ retrofocus lenses,
which means all SLR wideangles, whether zoom or prime. You can get rid of
it in designing a lens by letting barrel distortion outweigh it. The 24-120
has it, but not as much as some other Nikons. The 18's, all 3 of them, have
it to a noticeable (and objectionable, to me) degree. Conversely, the
20/2.8 and particularly the PC lenses (when not shifted much) have it only
very slightly.
The 35-70 is very good with respect to distortion and other optical
parameters, but of course it is limited in focal length. A tradeoff. A
35-70 is pointless for me. I have the 20-35 and the 80-200/2.8's, and most
of the primes from 15 to 400, but not the 35-70 zoom. I use the 24-120
mostly within the 24-85 range, as it is quite good there. A lot better at
24 and 85 than the 35-70. For the best image quality I get out a prime, or
larger formats.
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
