[mecrox]

Does anyone have any experience of what a comparable lens on Nikon FF would be to the DA* 16-50mm in terms of image quality? Now that I've had my 16-50mm calibrated and sorted out it seems to be pretty good. I wouldn't say stellar but better than the DA 18-55mm kits lens at most apertures and focal lengths. So I'm wondering what the Nikon equivalent would be. What I don't want to do is buy a D600 and then find that the kit lens for that, currently the 24-85mm VR, is on a par with the Pentax DA 18-55mm. I'm looking for something better, albeit not a heavy, $$$$ f2.8er. A curent f4er, a discontinued model or a third-party lens would be fine too. It's a walk-around - primes for the more considered moments. Any experience out there?

[Frogfish]

Having used the Zeiss SF2 35/2 (23.5mm on APS-C) for the past month or so (for mountains, monasteries, landscapes, street and ancient towns) I wouldn't even consider any zoom option now for the 16-50 (24-75mm on FF) range, though of course Nikon do have the very highly rated 24-70. If you want wider then there is the 28/2 (ca. 18mm on APS-C), a similar price to the 35mm (ca. $900 new I believe - maybe more in the UK !), or there is the Holy Grail of Zeiss primes, the 21/2 (14mm on APS-C), though that is roughly twice the price of the 35mm.

The beauty of these lenses is the incredible sharpness means you can crop away whatever you don't need and the MFD starts at around 6m so for most shots it's a case of spin it around to infinity and fire away ! Do make sure you find a lens with a hard stop at infinity though - I did have to try 3 to find one as there is sample variation it seems. Oh and they will all blow the 16-50 away !

Not sure this helps but it's the path I'd take.

[dylansalt]

I can guarantee that the Nikon 24-85 on the D600 will be far better than the 18-55 Pentax.

When I tested the 16-50 2.8 Pentax I found it simply was not worth the price compared to what my 18-55 could produce.

In fact I find that my Nikon 16-85 dx lens was sharper (and at date of purchase was 3k cheaper) than the Pentax 16-50 and had just as nice contrast.

It was one of the reasons I moved over to Nikon.

Go to the thread "Some Full frame thoughts and shots" will give you some idea what even the old Nikon glass can achieve.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

When compared to photos taken at the same AP diameter and FOV for pentax 16mm @f2.8 and the Nikon 24mm @ F4 I would have to say the Nikon is sharper in the center and no worse than pentax in the corners
When I get access to a Da * I would be happy to post some photos

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Both photos are taken with the same constant studio flash and as close as I could get with the same aperture diameter first I with the K5 16mm F2.8 aperture diameter of 5.71mm


D800 24mm F4 aperture diameter of 6.00mm


I also scaled the D800 to the K5 resolution


I stand corrected on the corner sharpness the D800 @24mm f4 is not as sharp as the K5 16mm 2.8 I had always felt it was better

As you can see with the D800 you are still able to pull detail out of the 24-85 VR so with the D600 itshouldn't have any problems

[mecrox]

Wow, that last post tells a story, Many thanks for it and for the other posts, folks. I think I will go for a 24-85 VR and use the saving over a more expensive zoom for primes, probably a classic 24/50/85 spreadto start with as I've noticed the 24mm D prime lens going for not much money here second-hand.