|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2009 12:27:07 PM · #26 |
Thanks  spiritualspatula for the link. He lays it out pretty well there. I'm going to go with the Nikon - would probably wish I had after a few weeks anyway. |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 12:28:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
NikonJeb, I knew you would show up.
So, if I ever want to invoke your presence again, can I just type your name three times like Beetle Juice? |
Sure.....but wouldn't Beetle Juice be more fun? |
How about you dressed as Beetle Juice? |
Guys, get a room:-):-) |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 01:19:38 PM · #28 |
| The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO might be a reasonable substitute for Canon's 70-200. It's somewhat more expensive, but also faster. |
|
|
|
03/30/2009 02:22:36 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
I have the Nikkor 18-105 VR kit lens.
Is 16-85mm VR any better? I know it is DX so not FF compatible. But still, for IQ, is it worth $600+ compared to the kit one?
Photozone.de says it is. But I want to get your opinion. Any other recommendations in this range? How does Tammy 28-75 2.8 fare with focussing speed etc.?
Also, Whats the equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f4 USM in NIkon? I could find the 70-300VR but that doesnt match the 'L' quality, or does it? And the 70-200 f/2.8 is crazy expensive.
Chime in please......... |
I find the process of choosing lenses to be one lengthy journey. Every lens has its optimum application - your challenge is to sellect a lens or lenses to meet what you think your application needs are going to be. An 18-105mm focal length lens is a very good general purpose zoom. Wide enough to gets decent landscapes and long enough to get frame filling portraits. Outside of this general purpose 18-105 range, one needs to decide what the application need is. Why do you need wider than 18mm? Why do you need longer than 105mm? Answering these questions will help you decide what the application needs is, then choose a lens(es) to fill it. If your pursuit is portraits, then choose a portrait lens. If wildlife, then pushing a 300/400/500/600mm length will meet your needs.
To me, buying a lens within the focal length I already had, must meet a specific application need that my current lens couldn't meet. Untill you define what the application need is, that is not being met by your current 18-105mm, I couldn't possibly suggest an alternative. Do you need faster? then why not bump up the ISO? Do you need crisper? Then why not use a tripod or f/8 aperature? What specifically is your 18-105mm not giving you, that makes you want to get a lens within the same focal length and within a limited budget?
eta: the single most important element in photography is light. The single most important element in a camera is the lens. The single most important element in a lens is the glass. Get the glass you need for the application. |
Thanks for a different and helpful analysis. I am looking to assemble the lenses that provide the best IQ that consumer level lenses can give. I have someone willing to take the 18-105, and want to replace it with a sharper and more contrasty lens in the wide angle zoom lens range... that would cover from 16/18 - 70/85... this is to fill in my liking for landscapes and portraits. I already have 70-300 VR for the remaining range for birding that I love.
Appreciate the advice! |
Excellant. A 70-300 will cover the moderate long stuff. For a couple of other lenses for your consideration;
Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 I love this lens. It is a solidly good "consumer" grade bordering on professional grade lens for candids, street and general purpose photography and most importantly exactly marries to a SB600 speedlight zoom range. Meaning that it auto zooms the speedlight as you adjust focal lengths. Very very handy. Others have suggested wider angle zooms in the 12-24 range for landscape applications.
Best of luck. I'll add a lens reviewer link that I greatly admire for any additional research you may wish to undertake.
eta: lens review link
Your notated 16-85VR is rated a respectable 4-4.5 (on a scale to 5) with the following commentary: "Obviously a further development along the guidelines set by the well-respected 18-70 AFS "kit" lens, the new 16-85 VR broadens the focal range and throws in VR for good measure. The lens is well built and appears quite compact too. In order to make the lens still compact and yet go to 85 mm, the engineers restricted the lens speed to f/5.6 at the long end. This makes the 16-85 project a slightly darkish image to the groundglass. However, the lens is clearly directed towards unashamed fans of the AF-S mantra, so the average user probably never consider this an issue.
At the widest setting, there is modest barrel distortion but huge amounts of corner darkening (vignetting), the latter needs massive stopping down to clear, to beyond f/8 when the lens is set to 16 mm. The geometric distortion is minimal around 40 mm and then crosses over in the usual manner to become a distinct pincushion towards the 85 mm focal length. I observed a slight field curvature too, so refraining from using the lens wide open seems a prudent move anyway. Image detail, contrast, and colour saturation, are all good and in the peak range from f/5.6 to f/11 (wide end) to f/8-f/11 (long end), excellent image quality can be acquired. The lens achieves around 1:4 magnification when focused close at its longestend. Not "macro" by any stretch of imagination, but nifty for close portraits, animals, larger flowers, and suchlike.
The filter threads are 67 mm and you need to keep the quite short and wide lens hood attached since the front element is very exposed and thus potentially prone to damage. Flare and ghosting are not troublesome with this lens, but care is needed when you point the lens towards the sun or other strong point-light sources.
AF speed is more than adequate on my pro cameras and VR lends a supporting hand to make amends for the slow speeds brought about by the smallish aperture of this lens. You can shoot down to about 1/15 sec with VR activated.
The 16-85 positions itself as a successor of the 18-70 Nikkor. It provides better image quality, adds a useful extension of range, and there is VR too for those in need of such devices. With all the new features factored into the equation, the loss of 2/3 stop "speed" at the long end becomes tolerable.
Finally, in case anyone wonders, the projected image circle will not cover the FX/24x36 mm format at any focal setting.
IR: I was surprised to learn that quite excellent IR pictures could be acquired with the 16-85 VR. No hot spots were observed in IR. As also seen with visible-light photography, vignetting at the shortest end of the zooming range was plainly visibe in IR. When the lens was zoomed a little away from the 16 mm position, the vignetting issue diminished rapidly. "
Message edited by author 2009-03-30 14:35:45. |
|
|
|
03/31/2009 01:00:47 AM · #30 |
| Thanks guys, and thanks Flash. I just received the 16-85 VR.. finally I let go of the kit lens. I will write more about my experiences with it later. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 06:12:34 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 06:12:34 AM EST.
|
