 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006D200
Can some one please give me some advice on a general purpose lens that is sharp, preferably a zoom, that will give great results on a D200.I have Canon, but will be switching camps to Nikon. Monty. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0629-2, 21/07/2006 Tested on: 21/07/2006 17:52:53 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > Can some one please give me some advice on a general purpose lens that > is sharp, preferably a zoom, that will give great results on a D200.I > have Canon, but will be switching camps to Nikon. There are lots of general purpose lenses, so it depends upon what general purpose you are referring to ;-) 18-200 Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR-II will work well for you. ~$800+- hard to find 18-70 Nikkor AF-S DX ED will work well. ~300 easy to find.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Can some one please give me some advice on a general purpose lens >> that is sharp, preferably a zoom, that will give great results on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 18-200 Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR-II will work well for you. ~$800+- hard > to find 18-70 Nikkor AF-S DX ED will work well. ~300 easy to find. Nonsense! The 18-200 is way overpriced and the morons are paying well over MSRP. He would be better suited investing this money in the 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Rita And these three together could be purchased for how much? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : >> Can some one please give me some advice on a general purpose lens : >> that is sharp, preferably a zoom, that will give great results on a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : : Rita > And these three together could be purchased for how much? The bottom line is totally dependant on how good a shopper you are. Rita Indeed Rita, I have two of these three and so far have shelled out a mere £1700. The third (28-70) will set me back £750 as soon as I get it together. Three of the best one can buy. Mind you not three of the best to lug around all day though.:-)) >> And these three together could be purchased for how much? > > The bottom line is totally dependant on how good a shopper you are. > > Rita > Indeed Rita, I have two of these three and so far have shelled out a > mere £1700. The third (28-70) will set me back £750 as soon as I get > it together. Three of the best one can buy. Mind you not three of the > best to lug around all day though.:-)) You'll love the 28-70. It's a bit heavy on the camera, but it's an amazingly nice lens and well worth every penny. I use a backpack and lugging them around is effortless. In the beginning I used to hate the weight and bulk of these lenses, but I don't even notice it anymore. Rita > >> Can some one please give me some advice on a general purpose lens > >> that is sharp, preferably a zoom, that will give great results on a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > MSRP. He would be better suited investing this money in the 17-35mm f/2.8, > 28-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Oh yeah. He will save a LOT of money if he does that. :-) And I would add the 12-24mm f/4 as well, if he is going to go that route. Maybe the 10.5mm fish eye, too. But then again, just maybe, none of those are a general purpose lens. If you want a good, general purpose lens, then the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm VR is a good choice. I think the latter is a much better choice. The only people who pay too much for it are those who cannot wait the couple weeks it takes for their order to arrive. >>> 18-200 Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR-II will work well for you. ~$800+- >>> hard to find 18-70 Nikkor AF-S DX ED will work well. ~300 easy to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 10.5mm fish eye, too. But then again, just maybe, none of those are a > general purpose lens. Absolutely, he will save at least $800+ by not buying the 18-200. Monumental savings are always achieved by buying an item only once. If he overpays for the 18-200 and later upgrades to the lenses he really wants/needs he flushed $800 down the toilet for an unsellable lens when the fad dies down. I'm not sure about the 12-24 or the 10.5 since there is very little need or demand for WA. Personally, I would pass on these two lenses and put that money towards a 300mm f/2.8. > If you want a good, general purpose lens, then the 18-70mm or the > 18-200mm VR is a good choice. I think the latter is a much better > choice. The only people who pay too much for it are those who cannot > wait the couple weeks it takes for their order to arrive. Seriously, I agree with you and he would do quite nicely with either of these lenses, provided he doesn't overpay for them. Rita >>>> 18-200 Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR-II will work well for you. ~$800+- >>>> hard to find 18-70 Nikkor AF-S DX ED will work well. ~300 easy to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the > fad dies down. If the 18-200 is a "fad" lens I think it's going to be a long, long time before that fad dies down, Rita. I'm just waiting patiently for better availability and prices on it to ease. > I'm not sure about the 12-24 or the 10.5 since there is very little need > or > demand for WA. I wouldn't say that! While long lenses have always been much more popular with the great mass of buyers, there are a lot of us who love ultrawides too. The 12-24 is a bit steep in price for me but the 10.5 is a little jewel. I have always liked fisheyes anyway, and Nikon Capture 4 does a great job of converting the 10.5's images to rectilinear, making it essentially a dual-purpose lens. Of course neither of those would quality as the "general purpose lens" the OP wants. > Personally, I would pass on these two lenses and put that > money towards a 300mm f/2.8. And a small wheelbarrow to carry it around on? ;-) >> If you want a good, general purpose lens, then the 18-70mm or the >> 18-200mm VR is a good choice. I think the latter is a much better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Seriously, I agree with you and he would do quite nicely with either of > these lenses, provided he doesn't overpay for them. Actually I would think those are the *only* two choices for a general-purpose lens. The 24-120 VR perhaps, if he doesn't need much of a wide-angle. Neil >> Absolutely, he will save at least $800+ by not buying the 18-200. >> Monumental savings are always achieved by buying an item only once. If he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > time before that fad dies down, Rita. I'm just waiting patiently for > better availability and prices on it to ease. I agree that it will be a while for the fad to die down, maybe another year. I'll probably get one even though I'm not overly excited about the lens. It is dirt cheap when properly bought and has moments where it can be handy. >> I'm not sure about the 12-24 or the 10.5 since there is very little >> need or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Capture 4 does a great job of converting the 10.5's images to > rectilinear, making it essentially a dual-purpose lens. I was never really impressed with the 12-24. I really like my 17-35 and when the FF D3x comes out to put things back in to perspective the 12-24 will be rendered totally obsolete. > Of course neither of those would quality as the "general purpose > lens" the OP wants. Agreed. >> Personally, I would pass on these two lenses and put that >> money towards a 300mm f/2.8. > > And a small wheelbarrow to carry it around on? ;-) It's not that bad. No pain no gain! >>> If you want a good, general purpose lens, then the 18-70mm or the >>> 18-200mm VR is a good choice. I think the latter is a much better [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > general-purpose lens. The 24-120 VR perhaps, if he doesn't need much > of a wide-angle. I would skip on the 24-120 since it's pretty much a lame dog. The 18-200 is a bit better for a good GP lens. Rita >>> Absolutely, he will save at least $800+ by not buying the 18-200. >>> Monumental savings are always achieved by buying an item only once. If [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I agree that it will be a while for the fad to die down, maybe another > year. <GUFFAW!> Actually I wish you were right, and Nikon finds itself with such a boatload of unmarketable 18-200s that they have to drastically cut prices and/or give enormous rebates just to get rid of them. But I'm afraid that ain't gonna happen. > I'll probably get one even though I'm not overly excited about the lens. > It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > when the FF D3x comes out to put things back in to perspective the 12-24 > will be rendered totally obsolete. Even when (and if) there really is a full-frame digital Nikon, I'll bet you anything you like, up to and including a cinnamon donut, that the vast majority of Nikon dSLR buyers will remain perfectly content with the so-called APS size sensors. I'm absolutely certain I will. After all, how is the full-frame C***n doing saleswise compared to its smaller brethren? Does it even approach 1% of their figures in sales? >> Of course neither of those would quality as the "general purpose >> lens" the OP wants. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's not that bad. No pain no gain! Rita, my idea of "heavy lens" is one that weighs a pound and a half. I think Nikon's 300mm f/2.8 goes about four times that! Okay, call me lazy, but when I go out and walk around half the day with a body and two or three lenses and maybe a flash unit, one of those lenses is emphatically *not* going to be a fast 300. I can certainly appreciate your admiration for that sort of glass, though. >>>> If you want a good, general purpose lens, then the 18-70mm or the >>>> 18-200mm VR is a good choice. I think the latter is a much better [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I would skip on the 24-120 since it's pretty much a lame dog. I've heard (or read) that, though the opinion doesn't seem to be universal. My own opinion, though it may be heretical to say so, is that many photographers obsess too much over having the nth degree of lens perfection. Certainly many great images have been taken with lenses much less than perfect, and most people don't study pictures intently with the object of discovering some optical imperfection. As has been pointed out by others, even Ansel Adams's prints were not really very sharp. No one complains about it. > The 18-200 is > a bit better for a good GP lens. I'm really looking forward to getting one. Neil > I've heard (or read) that, though the opinion doesn't seem to be > universal. My own opinion, though it may be heretical to say so, is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > has been pointed out by others, even Ansel Adams's prints were not > really very sharp. No one complains about it. This I can agree with, but having the best tools to do the job is always a plus. Rita > even Ansel Adams's prints were not > > really very sharp. No one complains about it. > > This I can agree with, but having the best tools to do the job is always a > plus. I don't agree with that at all,...I have seen AA prints (Plenty sharp) and it doubt any current digi cam is going to match them for sharpness anytime soon) SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> This I can agree with, but having the best tools to do the job is >> always a plus. > > I don't agree with that at all,...I have seen AA prints (Plenty sharp) > and it doubt any current digi cam is going to match them for sharpness > anytime soon) You base this on what? Rita > >> This I can agree with, but having the best tools to do the job is > >> always a plus. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You base this on what? The reentering snipped portion for relevance: > even Ansel Adams's prints were not > > really very sharp. No one complains about it. > > This I can agree with, but having the best tools to do the job is always a > plus. I don't agree with that at all,...I have seen AA prints (Plenty sharp) and it doubt any current digi cam is going to match them for sharpness anytime soon) Meaning I didn't agree that AA prints are not sharp. FWIW: Seeing his work up close, seeing his work at 11x14 & 16x20. Printing my work to 16x20 from LF negatives, shooting with Digital cameras I own, seeing other peoples large prints from Digital cameras enlarged to that degree. There are no current digital cameras in the consumer price range I have spent on LF gear or could spend that match its resolution. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > I don't agree with that at all,...I have seen AA prints (Plenty sharp) > and it doubt any current digi cam is going to match them for sharpness > anytime soon) > > Meaning I didn't agree that AA prints are not sharp. OK, it's just your opinion? I can understand that. > Seeing his work up close, seeing his work at 11x14 & 16x20. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consumer price range I have spent on LF gear or could spend that match > its resolution. Yep, just as I thought, cherry picking at its finest. All things being equal, if a "digi cam" sensor existed that were the same size as your LF it would blow it away 100 fold, maybe more. To make the argument more realistic let's compare equivalent size sensors to 35mm film, even APS-C is fine. In this case digital kills film. This is an old argument in these groups and it has been proven that digital prevails every time. Rita > Yep, just as I thought, cherry picking at its finest. My my we judge quickly don't we. > All things being > equal, if a "digi cam" sensor existed that were the same size as your LF it > would blow it away 100 fold, maybe more. Grand daddy use to say "IF" a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bust his butt on a rock. > To make the argument more > realistic let's compare equivalent size sensors to 35mm film, even APS-C is > fine. In this case digital kills film. > This is an old argument in these > groups and it has been proven that digital prevails every time. In some minds maybe so. I haven't reached that conclusion yet...... I shoot both, both have merits. Never said a sensor that big wouldn't match or exceed the film. Preferably sensors will not need to be the actual size to equal the film that size but it ain't there yet. The question is will it ever be affordable in this lifetime? SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> Yep, just as I thought, cherry picking at its finest. > > My my we judge quickly don't we. What else would it be if it weren't cherry picking. Are you comparing apples to oranges? I say you are and you are sidestepping by cherry picking. >> All things being >> equal, if a "digi cam" sensor existed that were the same size as >> your LF it would blow it away 100 fold, maybe more. > > Grand daddy use to say "IF" a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bust his > butt on a rock. Hey, you were the one that penned this hypothetical scenario, not me. I just debunked it. >> To make the argument more >> realistic let's compare equivalent size sensors to 35mm film, even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In some minds maybe so. I haven't reached that conclusion yet...... > I shoot both, both have merits. So, again, we're back to opinion? There's nothing wrong with your or my opinion since it's just that. > Never said a sensor that big wouldn't match or exceed the film. No, you're just massaging the facts to support something that isn't so. I'll take it a step farther. I can safely say that 35mm film won't yield images of the same quality an LF can. See how that comparison works? If you can't get 35mm film to match LF why would you even attempt to degrade digital with your weak argument? > Preferably sensors will not need to be the actual size to > equal the film that size but it ain't there yet. It would be nice, but some in this group that have technical expertise on this subject say it physically can't be done. I guess this means we will never see an APS-C sensor that rivals LF. That's all right with me since millimeter for millimeter comparison digital has already won over film. > The question is will it ever be affordable in this lifetime? Sure will. Rita > >>> 18-200 Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR-II will work well for you. ~$800+- > >>> hard to find 18-70 Nikkor AF-S DX ED will work well. ~300 easy to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > wants/needs he flushed $800 down the toilet for an unsellable lens when the > fad dies down. Really, Rita? You are convinced that a lens you have not even tried is that bad? You know what? I have the other lenses you talk about, and I am seriously considering selling them since it is the 18-200mm lens that stays on my camera more than 90% of the time. I fail to see how paying upwards of $5000 for a set of lenses saves you money over a single $800 lens that will probably do the job quite well. What possible advantage does any of these fantastic lenses you recommend have for us amateurs, seeing as how we spend most of our time shooting handheld vacation pics and family snapshots? That extra sharpness does not exist for us. What do we get for the extra $4000+ we spend for those lenses? Better bokeh? >> Absolutely, he will save at least $800+ by not buying the 18-200. >> Monumental savings are always achieved by buying an item only once. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Really, Rita? You are convinced that a lens you have not even tried is > that bad? Who said anything about bad? The 18-200 is a great lens for what it is. You know once he starts using it he will start to identify the areas where a professional lens will excel. The same way I did when I had the great 18-70 "kit" lens. I'm so glad that I replaced it with the 17-35 and the 28-70. I could have gone with the 17-55, but that would have cut out a focal length I use the most. > You know what? I have the other lenses you talk about, and I am > seriously considering selling them since it is the 18-200mm lens that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > does not exist for us. What do we get for the extra $4000+ we spend > for those lenses? Better bokeh? You might have seriously considered selling them, but I'll bet at the end of the day you won't. We both know you won't. As for the $800, he would have saved it by skipping the detour and going directly to what he would eventually want, the better lenses. Of course, the advantage with the 'big three' is better optics, speed, build quality, and functionality over the 18-200. If what you say is true and all he's going to be doing with any lens is taking vacation pics and family snaps and not worry about how they look he'd be better suited to skip the DSLR route all together and buy a $129 P&S. Rita >>> Absolutely, he will save at least $800+ by not buying the 18-200. >>> Monumental savings are always achieved by buying an item only once. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 18-70 > "kit" lens. I'm so glad that I replaced it with the 17-35 and the 28-70. Just curious: when you say "replaced it with" do you mean you *sold* the 18-70, or just never use it anymore? I sort of have the impression that you generally hold onto your no-longer-used equipment. Just curious #2: in a double-blind test, taking photos of the same subject and all other conditions being identical (therefore without using f/2.8 of course), could you really tell the difference between results from the 18-70 and the more expensive lenses? In other words, apart from the two-thirds to one-and-a-third stop advantage in aperture, is there really a *visible* superiority? And if so, to what percentage of people would it actually be visible? I've used SLRs for 40+ years and for most of that time was absolutely lens-crazy, bought just about every kind of lens available for whatever cameras I was using at the time. But being only an enthusiast-amateur I never got into any of the super-expensive glass (and for me, even a $1000 lens would qualify as super-expensive) so that sort of thing is completely outside of my experience, hence my curiosity. Neil >> The same way I did when I had the great 18-70 >> "kit" lens. I'm so glad that I replaced it with the 17-35 and the 28-70. > > Just curious: when you say "replaced it with" do you mean you *sold* the > 18-70, or just never use it anymore? I sort of have the impression that you > generally hold onto your no-longer-used equipment. Well, I, too, replaced my 18-70 kit lens with the 17-35 (but not the 28-70). I found that the 17-35 range would cover more than 90% of my use of the kit lens, so that was that. I sold the kit lens along with my D70. > Just curious #2: in a double-blind test, taking photos of the same subject > and all other conditions being identical (therefore without using f/2.8 of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > superiority? And if so, to what percentage of people would it actually be > visible? The difference is apparent, yes. It would be visible to those doing serious photography who have the skill to get the best results out of their equipment. It would probably not be visible to a novice, and would certainly not matter in the least to someone doing vacation and family snapshots. A beginner or novice can't go wrong with the 18-70, in my opinion. The 18-200 is another matter; I haven't used it myself, but I get the impression that it's good enough in quality for that, but it's also pretty expensive for a "starter" lens. If the cost doesn't bother you, great. But if you expect to grow out of it, that could be a good bit of cash to drop. And if you're just doing snapshots, while it will do just fine for that, you really don't need an SLR in the first place. But if you do care enough to use an SLR, but you never expect to get serious enough about photography to want the thousand-dollar-plus lenses, it's probably a decent choice. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > The difference is apparent, yes. It would be visible to those doing serious > photography who have the skill to get the best results out of their equipment. > It would probably not be visible to a novice, and would certainly not matter > in the least to someone doing vacation and family snapshots. This seems almost like an arrogant statement. I suspect even a novice can see the obvious barrel distortions at different focal lengths. What they probably don't know is that it is the lens that is causing it. Also, with digital, it is not too hard to fix this in Photoshop or another similar tool [it is better to not have the issue in the first place]. I have seen very little chromatic abberation issues and they also are easily correctable. > A beginner or novice can't go wrong with the 18-70, in my opinion. The > 18-200 is another matter; I haven't used it myself, but I get the impression [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > SLR, but you never expect to get serious enough about photography to want > the thousand-dollar-plus lenses, it's probably a decent choice. In short ... your statements marginalize a very useful lens, even for a photographer beyond beginner or novice. In fact, its biggest detractor in my book is its variable apperature through the zoom range and its relatively slow speed. Neither of these have to be an issue for many types of photography ... professional or otherwise. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > This seems almost like an arrogant statement. Don't be silly. A novice has a way to go before the difference between these lenses becomes a limiting factor. There's nothing arrogant about that. > In short ... your statements marginalize a very useful lens, even for a > photographer beyond beginner or novice. I find the lens entirely uninteresting, and have not the most remote desire to put one on my camera. Yet, there are people for whom I would consider it useful. Serious, advanced photographers are not among them. If you disagree, that's fine; it's no reason to start attacking and calling me "arrogant". > Neither of these have to be an issue for many types of photography ... > professional or otherwise. "Professional" never entered into anything I had to say. It's not relevant in this matter. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > This seems almost like an arrogant statement. > > Don't be silly. A novice has a way to go before the difference between these > lenses becomes a limiting factor. There's nothing arrogant about that. Jeremy, What do you mean by advanced and novice? I'm asking because I don't think someone who uses a tripod, avoids flare, uses mirror lockup when needed and all the rest that is required to get maximum sharpness is necessarily an "advanced" photographer (clearly, you may mean something else by advanced, hence my question). Or do you mean by advanced "experienced" (as in experienced enough to look at 100% crops, see the difference in sharpness and realise it's the lens/f stop/camera shake/blah)? Cheers. > What do you mean by advanced and novice? I'm asking because I don't > think someone who uses a tripod, avoids flare, uses mirror lockup when > needed and all the rest that is required to get maximum sharpness is > necessarily an "advanced" photographer (clearly, you may mean something > else by advanced, hence my question). If the difference between those lenses is a significant limiting factor in your photography, you're not a novice. > Or do you mean by advanced "experienced" (as in experienced enough to > look at 100% crops, see the difference in sharpness and realise it's > the lens/f stop/camera shake/blah)? Seeing it in other peoples' pictures is another thing entirely. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> This seems almost like an arrogant statement. > > Don't be silly. A novice has a way to go before the difference between these > lenses becomes a limiting factor. There's nothing arrogant about that. No, I wasn't commenting on the lens being a limitting factor. I was commenting on your comment that a novice would not be able to see the difference. >> In short ... your statements marginalize a very useful lens, even for a >> photographer beyond beginner or novice. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you disagree, that's fine; it's no reason to start attacking and calling > me "arrogant". See my statement above. I didn't call you arrogant. I called your statement "almost arrogant". SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Don't be silly. A novice has a way to go before the difference between >> these lenses becomes a limiting factor. There's nothing arrogant about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > commenting on your comment that a novice would not be able to see the > difference. It's the same thing. If the lens isn't a limiting factor, it won't make much visible difference, will it? Do you really think that getting a better lens will automatically make the average novice's pictures so much better? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> Don't be silly. A novice has a way to go before the difference between >>> these lenses becomes a limiting factor. There's nothing arrogant about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > better lens will automatically make the average novice's pictures so > much better? You still missed the point. I am commenting on your statement that indicates a novice will not be able to see the issues with a lens. That is what I termed almost arrogant. You can appreciate good art, and even point out the defects in it, without being a good artist. You can point out a good dancer and even criticise technique and yet not be an expert on the subject or be a dancer yourself. Indicating that a novice is unable to tell the difference can be read as arrogant. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > You still missed the point. I am commenting on your statement that indicates > a novice will not be able to see the issues with a lens. That is what I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dancer yourself. Indicating that a novice is unable to tell the difference > can be read as arrogant. Oh. So, basically, you read a different meaning than the one I intended. I didn't say they can't see it when it's put in front of their faces; I said they wouldn't see a difference in their work. You wouldn't even have to be a photographer at all to see the difference between those two lenses if it were shown to you. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> You still missed the point. I am commenting on your statement that indicates >> a novice will not be able to see the issues with a lens. That is what I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didn't say they can't see it when it's put in front of their faces; I said > they wouldn't see a difference in their work. So, if a novice puts an 18-70 lens on their camera and takes a picture of a building with vertical columns at 20mm focal length. Then, they take it off and put on a 20mm lens and take the same picture, you are saying they won't be able to pick out the barrel distortion on the picture they took with the cheaper lens? You don't give them credit. What make them novice is if they have ONLY the 18-70 lens and take the picture, note the barrel distortion, but do not know that it is caused by the lens [or called barrel distortion]. In short, a novice would indeed benefit from the better lens. That doesn't mean they take good pictures (i.e. composition and technique). I think you state a correlation between lens and skill level, when in fact, you really meant that without skill level, investment in a better lense will not help them much. I guess it is all in the delivery. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > So, if a novice puts an 18-70 lens on their camera and takes a picture of a > building with vertical columns at 20mm focal length. Then, they take it off > and put on a 20mm lens and take the same picture, you are saying they won't be > able to pick out the barrel distortion on the picture they took with the > cheaper lens? You don't give them credit. As I've already said a couple of times, I didn't say that the novice is somehow incapable of seeing the difference when it's sitting right there. I said he wouldn't see a difference in his work. *Anyone* can see the difference in a controlled comparison. I'm not sure how many times I can say this over and over until I just give up and let you read it however you like. > In short, a novice would indeed benefit from the better lens. That doesn't > mean they take good pictures (i.e. composition and technique). Well, if you really think a novice should waste his time worrying about it, and that it'll really make his pictures better, go ahead and recommend it. I think it's silly, myself; it's not going to be the thing that will improve his pictures, he'll just be wasting time and money when he could be enjoying photography. Unless you really think the average novice is interested in shooting controlled test shots all day long. > I think you state a correlation between lens and skill level, when in fact, > you really meant that without skill level, investment in a better lense will > not help them much. I don't think it will help them at all, when the lens they have is already quite good. You can't buy your way into better pictures. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Well, I, too, replaced my 18-70 kit lens with the 17-35 (but not the > 28-70). I found that the 17-35 range would cover more than 90% of my > use of the kit lens, so that was that. I sold the kit lens along > with my D70. I'm just the opposite since my 28-70 gets more use than the 17-35. You would have been a better candidate for the 17-55. Rita >> Well, I, too, replaced my 18-70 kit lens with the 17-35 (but not the >> 28-70). I found that the 17-35 range would cover more than 90% of my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm just the opposite since my 28-70 gets more use than the 17-35. You > would have been a better candidate for the 17-55. I was trying to choose between the 17-35 and the 17-55. The former is a better lens, the latter has 55mm. So I looked at the EXIF for all my kit lens shots. I found that my use of it between 35mm and 55mm amounted to exactly zero. I had one good shot with it at 70mm, but found that when I go longer than 35mm I was normally changing lenses anyway, with that one exception, and a few crappy 70mm shots where I should have changed lenses but didn't bother because I knew the pictures wouldn't be great anyway. So that made it easy. For my shooting the 17-35 works beautifully as a "default" lens. When I want to go longer I usually get out a 50mm. In fact, my usual "throw stuff into the bag" kit is the 17-35, a 50, and the 70-200, unless I'm doing something more specialized. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I'm just the opposite since my 28-70 gets more use than the 17-35. >> You would have been a better candidate for the 17-55. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the pictures wouldn't be great anyway. So that made it easy. For my > shooting the 17-35 works beautifully as a "default" lens. I agree that the 17-35 is definitely better than the 17-55. When I was suffering with my 18-70 I did the EXIF thing as well and most of my shots were above 35mm and closer to 70 so I bought the 28-70. I got myself in a spot where I needed wider and didn't have it so I went out and bought the 17-35. Both the 17-35 and 28-70 are beyond awesome. > When I want to go longer I usually get out a 50mm. In fact, my usual > "throw stuff into the bag" kit is the 17-35, a 50, and the 70-200, > unless I'm doing something more specialized. The 70-200mm is great. I had to use it in a church a few weeks back and as usual it performs. Rita >> When I want to go longer I usually get out a 50mm. In fact, my usual >> "throw stuff into the bag" kit is the 17-35, a 50, and the 70-200, >> unless I'm doing something more specialized. > > The 70-200mm is great. I had to use it in a church a few weeks back and as > usual it performs. You mean it takes good photos, or it played the organ? > You mean it takes good photos, or it played the organ? Both! Rita >> You mean it takes good photos, or it played the organ? > > Both! And Rita can post a photo *showing* it playing the organ! [ . . . ] >> Just curious #2: in a double-blind test, taking photos of the same >> subject [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > photography who have the skill to get the best results out of their > equipment. That sounds like you are talking about the photographer examining his own work -- which is bound to be at least somewhat subjective. While I can certainly understand the importance of satisfying onself with the quality of one's own work, what I really was curious about (and the reason for suggesting a double-blind test) was whether anyone *else* would be able -- without being told which photo was taken with the more expensive lens -- to see the difference. > It would probably not be visible to a novice, and would certainly not > matter > in the least to someone doing vacation and family snapshots. How about someone just very interested in, and appreciative of, good photography? Perhaps even someone not really interested in doing it himself, but only in viewing the work of others? What I'm getting at is something I mentioned here the other day: that after reading many comments by photographers about the importance of having ultra-expensive lenses, I suspect that many if not most of them are obsessing unnecessarily about having lenses at the nth degree of perfection. I have seen an awful lot of prize-winning photographs in which the optical performance of the lens clearly could not have been gauged by looking at the picture, i.e. they could have been taken with a $50 lens or a $5000 lens. In fact I can't recall seeing an impressive photograph about which I thought, "Wow, what a great lens!" > A beginner or novice can't go wrong with the 18-70, in my opinion. The > 18-200 is another matter; I haven't used it myself, but I get the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > SLR, but you never expect to get serious enough about photography to want > the thousand-dollar-plus lenses, it's probably a decent choice. I've been in photography as an enthusiast for 50+ years now, have owned and used an awful lot of cameras and lenses, but I guess I'm not "serious enough about photography" to care that much about expensive equipment per se. Don't misunderstand me; I can certainly appreciate the admiration for fine equipment. Fascination with the hardware is in fact one of the things that's most appealing to me about photography as a hobby. I am just doubtful about how the need or desire for expensive equipment correlates with seriousness about photography. But again, I'm strictly an amateur and in half a century have never thought of being otherwise. No doubt a pro has equipment needs much different from mine. Neil > That sounds like you are talking about the photographer examining his own > work -- which is bound to be at least somewhat subjective. While I can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without being told which photo was taken with the more expensive lens -- to > see the difference. I think you're looking at it the wrong way. When you get into the realm of the difference between a great lens and a really great lens, you're talking about that last 10% of quality. Yes, you can immediately tell the difference between the same picture taken with the 18-70 vs. the 17-35. I tried it, when I had both lenses. It's night and day. But no one takes pictures like that, except as academic exercises. The question isn't whether you can tell the difference in some controlled experiment. The question is whether, when you look at ways in which *your* photography might be improved, the answer "get some better lenses" is near the top of the list. For many people, it's just not something they should be concerned about at the moment. Can you see the difference in a controlled experiment? Yes. Could you see the difference in your own, real-world photography? That's what matters. If you're still learning to get your exposures right and compose well, it's not something that you need to waste your time and money on. Learning photography is quite enjoyable; why mess it up worrying about equipment that won't make any difference to you anyway? > What I'm getting at is something I mentioned here the other day: that after > reading many comments by photographers about the importance of having [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fact I can't recall seeing an impressive photograph about which I thought, > "Wow, what a great lens!" There are a lot of factors that go into an impressive photograph about which you didn't think. That is only one. Many of the others actually mattered in its creation, too. Unless it was just luck -- anyone can get a great picture out of luck, it's doing it on purpose that matters -- things went into its creation that you probably wouldn't even think of if you weren't there. And, of course, you *don't* need a great, multi-thousand dollar lens to make a great photograph. It's just one part of the equation. You don't need most of what you have, to make a great photograph -- but you might need it to make all the great photographs you want to make, when you want to make them. > But again, I'm strictly an amateur and in half a century have never thought > of being otherwise. No doubt a pro has equipment needs much different from > mine. Of course, and they aren't terribly relevant if you don't need to put food on the table with the equipment. Many amateurs have much better equipment than the average pro, simply because the pro doesn't need it, while the amateur need not financially justify it. What's in my camera bag would be stupidly overpurchased if the point were to make some money shooting weddings. And inadequate if I wanted to make money shooting football games. Since I'm not hoping to ever recoup the money spent on it, though, it can be whatever I want. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> That sounds like you are talking about the photographer examining his own >> work -- which is bound to be at least somewhat subjective. While I can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and day. But no one takes pictures like that, except as academic > exercises. When you say "It's night and day" presumably you mean the 17-35 is that much better. That's apparently debatable, in view of Ken Rockwell's comparisons here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-sharpness-18.htm Of the six lenses Rockwell compares on that page -- all at 18mm, since he is primarily comparing four different ultrawides but just threw in the 18-200 VR and the 17-35 because those were lenses he had on hand that covered that f.l. too -- he finds (top left corner, f/5.6) the Nikon 17-35 AF-S "clearly the worst," and (same corner, f/11) the 17-35 is "dead last again." His 100% crops illustrate this. Now admittedly he's not comparing it with the 18-70 you're comparing it with (likely he didn't have one on hand), only with the Nikon 18-200 VR, Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 11-18. But one would expect, from its high price and constant f/2.8 aperture, that the Nikon 17-35 would be easily the highest-performance lens of that group -- especially when closed down two stops while others of the much cheaper lenses were wide open or nearly so. In fact the 17-35 AF-S is by a substantial margin more expensive than any of the lenses he compared it with -- about $400 more than the Nikon 12-24, $500 more than the Nikon 18-200 VR, and way more than that for the other three lenses. This does not seem to make a very persuasive case for the 17-35. > The question isn't whether you can tell the difference in some controlled > experiment. The question is whether, when you look at ways in which > *your* > photography might be improved, the answer "get some better lenses" is near > the top of the list. For many people, it's just not something they should > be concerned about at the moment. But how is a lens "better" when it is in fact less sharp in a controlled experiment? Is it "better" just because it costs more, is much bigger and heavier and more professional looking? Of course there are other important attributes to any lens besides sharpness, but in Rockwell's samples the 17-35 does not seem to show superiority to some far cheaper lenses in any way. Neil > Of course there are other important attributes to any lens besides > sharpness, but in Rockwell's samples the 17-35 does not seem to show > superiority to some far cheaper lenses in any way. I would ask just how Rockwell set up his tests as one of the 17-35 shots looks like it's got some motion blur. SignatureRebecca Ore >> Of course there are other important attributes to any lens besides >> sharpness, but in Rockwell's samples the 17-35 does not seem to show >> superiority to some far cheaper lenses in any way. > > I would ask just how Rockwell set up his tests as one of the 17-35 > shots looks like it's got some motion blur. I don't recall whether he mentioned it, but I assume he must have used a tripod since I cannot imagine anyone doing a test like that hand held. Neil >>> Of course there are other important attributes to any lens besides >>> sharpness, but in Rockwell's samples the 17-35 does not seem to show [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't recall whether he mentioned it, but I assume he must have used a > tripod since I cannot imagine anyone doing a test like that hand held. Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means nobody else could figure. It's sideways motion blur, looks like. Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. He could have not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. I don't believe Jeremy is getting a commission for his recommendations. SignatureRebecca Ore > Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. > Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting > cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. He could have > not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. DING! DING! DING! We got a winner! Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. >> Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting >> cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. He could have >> not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. > > DING! DING! DING! We got a winner! Rita .. and several others here ... you have all sidestepped the issue entirely by indicating that since it is Ken Rockwell, you simply won't comments. Sounds evasive and frankly, you haven't supported your own argment. Support your arguments please. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > Rita .. and several others here ... you have all sidestepped the issue > entirely by indicating that since it is Ken Rockwell, you simply won't > comments. Sounds evasive and frankly, you haven't supported your own argment. There is no need for support... Ken Rockwell has about as much credibility as Fox News, which is to say, none at all. Dismissing his statements out of hand is perfectly reasonable. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Rita .. and several others here ... you have all sidestepped the >> issue entirely by indicating that since it is Ken Rockwell, you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > credibility as Fox News, which is to say, none at all. Dismissing > his statements out of hand is perfectly reasonable. You got it. He totally trashed the review of the 105mm VR the last time I looked at it. I have both the 105D AF and VR and found his observations totally bullshit. The bottom line is the 105mm VR is a superior lens with great performance, but already owning a 105D AF the VR didn't buy me anything over the older model for my macro shooting style. If I didn't already have the older lens I wouldn't have anything to compare it to and say the VR is awesome, which it is. I personally like the older lens better and passed the VR to my son. He got a free lens and has nothing to bitch about if he didn't like it. Rita >> Rita .. and several others here ... you have all sidestepped the issue >> entirely by indicating that since it is Ken Rockwell, you simply won't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is no need for support... Ken Rockwell has about as much credibility > as Fox News, which is to say, none at all. Not a very good example. Fox News has plenty of credibility in my book, especially in comparison to the three "mainstream" networks. Now if they'd had their top news anchor and managing editor leave, thoroughly discredited, after using false documents to mount a partisan attack on President Bush -- as we all know CBS News did -- *then* you'd be justified in saying they have no crediblity at all. Or if they'd had a political director instructing anchors and reporters to slant the news in favor of Kerry before the election -- as the leaked internal Halperin memo showed ABC News did -- *then* you'd be justified in saying they have no credibility at all. Neil >>> Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. >>> Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > comments. Sounds evasive and frankly, you haven't supported your own > argment. Refresh my memory on which issue I'm supposedly sidestepping? > Support your arguments please. What argument is that? Rita >>>> Of course there are other important attributes to any lens besides >>>> sharpness, but in Rockwell's samples the 17-35 does not seem to show [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means > nobody else could figure. That one I never saw. Can you provide a cite? I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but in that particular article (which is primarily devoted to the comparison of those four ultrawides) there does seem to be a lot of useful information, carefully arrived at. His analyses of those four lenses seems fair and even-handed to me. > It's sideways motion blur, looks like. If it's motion blur it would have to be the same in all three 100% crops from the same frame, obviously. Where do you see what looks like motion blur? Which shot(s)? > Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. > Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting > cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. Maybe, but since the prices at the places attached to those click-throughs are not the best, I question how much business will be done that way. > He could have > not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. Or he could have used a flimsy eight-section tripod on a windy day. Anything's possible. > I don't believe Jeremy is getting a commission for his > recommendations. I don't think anyone has suggested that. Neil >> Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined >> that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means >> nobody else could figure. > > That one I never saw. Can you provide a cite? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Literally every other photo site I was reading when I was deciding which camera to get recommended the 18-70 over the 18-55. I asked a net friend who was knowledgeable about cameras what was up and he explained that Rockwell wasn't really all that reliable. > I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but in that particular > article (which is primarily devoted to the comparison of those four > ultrawides) there does seem to be a lot of useful information, carefully > arrived at. His analyses of those four lenses seems fair and even-handed to > me. <Shrug> See if you can spot a faint side to side smear in the crops. >> It's sideways motion blur, looks like. > > If it's motion blur it would have to be the same in all three 100% crops > from the same frame, obviously. Where do you see what looks like motion > blur? Which shot(s)? Um, the lenses had to be changed and there are slight variations in the framing of the shots. There are also variations in exposure. I was just playing with my VR 105mm macro with and with VR and got similar motion blur without the VR in handheld shots. You should look at all of them closely. If other people don't see it, I might be wrong. >> Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. >> Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting >> cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. > > Maybe, but since the prices at the places attached to those click-throughs > are not the best, I question how much business will be done that way. People who trust his reviews might not be the most informed consumers. He urges people to support his site by buying from his sponsors. I suspect he gets something for this. >> He could have >> not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. > > Or he could have used a flimsy eight-section tripod on a windy day. > Anything's possible. Yeah. >> I don't believe Jeremy is getting a commission for his >> recommendations. > > I don't think anyone has suggested that. If Jeremy was getting commissions when he sold people on Nikons, I don't know how they'd know to pay him since he's not operating click throughs :) If you knew someone through on line activities over the years and had seen his work, and read his posts on photography, would you take him more seriously than someone who set up a site for click-throughs to sites that don't have the cheapest prices? SignatureRebecca Ore >>> Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined >>> that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Okay, thanks. He doesn't really say the 18-55 is *better* than the 18-70, only that he prefers it as cheap midrange zoom which, he says, is a type he rarely uses anyway. He gives his reasons for preferring it, which are sort of interesting. One is that the zoom increments are spaced evenly, while on the 18-70 they are bunched together at the short end. He's right about that, and I can see the benefit of a more proportional zoom control, though that would not be a terribly important difference to me. > Literally every other photo site I was reading when I was deciding > which camera to get recommended the 18-70 over the 18-55. I asked a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > <Shrug> See if you can spot a faint side to side smear in the crops. I really can't, in any of the shots taken with that lens. There is some obvious chromatic aberration in the corners, which you might be taking for smear or blur. There's nothing in the center crops, and obviously if there were any blur from side to side movement it would have to exist in the center as well as the corners. >>> It's sideways motion blur, looks like. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Um, the lenses had to be changed and there are slight variations in > the framing of the shots. There are also variations in exposure. Slight variations in framing are to be expected, since the lenses were all of different zoom ranges and he had to manually set each one as close to 18mm as he could. Variations in exposure would also be caused by different lenses. > I was just playing with my VR 105mm macro with and with VR and got similar > motion blur without the VR in handheld shots. > > You should look at all of them closely. If other people don't see it, > I might be wrong. I don't see anything that looks like motion blur. >>> Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. >>> Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He urges people to support his site by buying from his sponsors. I > suspect he gets something for this. Sure! Same arrangement as with all such sites, I have no doubt. >>> He could have >>> not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more seriously than someone who set up a site for click-throughs to > sites that don't have the cheapest prices? That depends. Click-throughs don't carry any negative meanings for me. All of the camera reviewers' sites that I go to (Steve's Digicams, DP Review, etc.) use them, in most cases plenty of them. That's fine with me. A lot of work must go into managing those sites, and I don't begrudge them making a buck. Neil >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Ken Rockwell is an entertainer. The 18-55 sucks for many users because the front element rotates when it focuses (pain in the neck if using a polariser - something that you probably would want to do at with a wide-short tele zoom), the AF-s system doesn't use a ring-motor (so you can't use manual focus unless you switch AF off first), the front focus ring is horrible, and it feels like a piece of junk. But it is cheap and optical quality not too bad if those things don't worry you.. The 18-70 isn't perfect - it has a lot of light fall-off, the zoom action is weird. The 17-55 is built like a tank, is faster and nicer to use, costs a lot more - but it's not perfect either. Life's like that. If you want review of lenses for Nikon look at photozone.de photodo.com (new updated site) or Nikonians.org For comparison - look at the results that Ken Rockwell got for the ultra-wide zooms, compared to photozone, photodo, and Nikonians. >Okay, thanks. He doesn't really say the 18-55 is *better* than the 18-70, Actually I remember he does, just not on that specific page. Hang on...ok found it: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm Right at the top he says the 18-55 is better. Which is essentially false. >only that he prefers it as cheap midrange zoom which, he says, is a type he >rarely uses anyway. <rant time> That's part of the problem - he's basically telling buyers to get the 18-55 over the much better 18-70 lense for reasons that are not relevant to most people looking for performance. Whether he uses that range is irrelevant, but it's one of the underlying reasons for his conclusions. That's just wrong. > He gives his reasons for preferring it, which are sort >of interesting. One is that the zoom increments are spaced evenly, while on >the 18-70 they are bunched together at the short end. He's right about that, >and I can see the benefit of a more proportional zoom control, though that >would not be a terribly important difference to me. The only logical reason to get the 18-55 is the cost savings. All of his other reasons are frivolous and I can't imagine anyone but a first time buyer thinking otherwise. The sharpness, contrast, colour, zoom range, handling, focus speed, non-rotating front element, and full-time manual are all better options with the 18-70 lense. But he says it has an odd zoom ring and weighs a few ounces more, so don't buy it. That's just wrong again. >> <Shrug> See if you can spot a faint side to side smear in the crops. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >were any blur from side to side movement it would have to exist in the >center as well as the corners. Take another look at the crops in the background away from the CA. I too noticed that the 17-35 images have motion blur. And while I haven't used the 17-35 myself, everything I've read on the internet and samples I've seen indicate the opposite of what Rockwell says. Which doesn't surprise me. >That depends. Click-throughs don't carry any negative meanings for me. All >of the camera reviewers' sites that I go to (Steve's Digicams, DP Review, >etc.) use them, in most cases plenty of them. That's fine with me. A lot of >work must go into managing those sites, and I don't begrudge them making a >buck. I don't either, it's expected. But I _do_ expect honest, fair, and objective reviews. Rita mentioned the Nikon 105 VR "review" from Rockwell. If you have a look, you'll find he just briefly picked up the lense at PMA 2006 and immediately didn't like it and writes it off without any follow up. The results of his imaginary test review is: "Not recommended". Why? Because he claims autofocus is unreliable (hardly) and he already has a 105 AF lense and doesn't need another. So basically he's telling everyone not to buy it because it's a bad lense, which is false. And since he already has the older model, nobody else should get it either. But let's not lose focus of the test - he didn't seriously review it at all. He just picked it up at a show and played for a few minutes, and made his own wild conclusions. That's just wrong on every level. And oddly enough, that's not the first time he's done it. There are numerous "test reviews" on his site where it sounds like he didn't even have the lense in his hands, nevermind test it properly, yet he can make recommendations about all of them - almost magical. Newbies love Rockwells site because it has so much useful and new information from which to learn and he's helping them save money. Honesty and accuracy are very questionable (dare I say lies?), but hey, these people are new at it and don't know any better. I'm may not be the smartest guy on the planet, and I'm not a reviewer. But even I'm not stupid enough to make claims about stuff I don't really know anything about. </rant time> And here's the final Rockwell laugh of the day - his homepage has a reversed image. Kinda like the info in his site...a.s backwards. :-D >>Okay, thanks. He doesn't really say the 18-55 is *better* than the 18-70, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Right at the top he says the 18-55 is better. Which is essentially > false. Interesting. You're right; he says the 18-55 is "better and cheaper." But four paragraphs later he says of the 18-70, "This is a serious lens, not a "kit lens" or a cheap replacement for a lens cap sold as part of a kit as with most other cameras. The fast f/3.5 - 4.5 speed should be your clue; the cheapies are all f/3.5 - 5.6. The 18 - 55 is a cheapie, but good." So evidently his main reason for liking the 18-55 is that it's a "cheapie," and as he says elsewhere he doesn't use a midrange zoom now anyway; he has said practically all his shooting is done with the Nikon 12-24 and a little with the 18-200 VR. Obviously his opinions just change: he says the 18-70 "was my favorite midrange zoom for digital until the better and cheaper 18 - 55 came out" a year later. So he seems to be a strongly opinionated fellow whose opinions swing around a lot. That makes his advice and recommendations questionable to say the least. But I'm seldom interested in anyone else's advice and recommendations anyway; I'm only interested in the test results and factual comparisons, and with those I can arrive at my own recommendations. For these I think his article comparing the four ultrawide zooms is worthwhile, and incidentally his conclusions comport pretty well with Photozone's tests of the same lenses, especially his choice of the Tokina 12-24 as clearly second best to the Nikon 12-24. All that really convinced me of was that the Nikon 12-24 is the one I want, even at the much stiffer price. "We only pass this way once," as a fellow once said. Still Rockwell's article was interesting and informative, and worth my time reading it. >>only that he prefers it as cheap midrange zoom which, he says, is a type >>he [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > other reasons are frivolous and I can't imagine anyone but a first time > buyer thinking otherwise. Well, I think he makes some interesting points, but yes, obviously the 18-55 is just what it's intended to be, an inexpensive lens for a buyer new to dSLRs. > The sharpness, contrast, colour, zoom range, handling, focus speed, > non-rotating front element, and full-time manual are all better options [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's just wrong again. And a complete switch from his (probably equally strong) opinion of just a couple of years ago, when it was his "favorite midrange zoom." >>> <Shrug> See if you can spot a faint side to side smear in the crops. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Take another look at the crops in the background away from the CA. I too > noticed that the 17-35 images have motion blur. But motion blur would have to be all over the entire frame, in the central 100% crops just as much as the corner ones. I don't see any motion blur. > And while I haven't used the 17-35 myself, everything I've read on the > internet and samples I've seen indicate the opposite of what Rockwell [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But I _do_ expect honest, fair, and objective reviews. I think his review of those four ultrawide zooms is honest and fair. Objective? Probably not, since he's such an opinionated fellow; but I suspect this is an area where anyone's personal preferences make objectivity difficult anyway. For example, he strongly advises anyone who buys one of the non-Nikon lenses to buy a genuine Nikon rear cap and never use the one that came with the lens. It's hard for me to imagine anyone actually doing that, though I certainly agree (owning lenses myself from all four of those manufacturers) that some rear caps are better than others, and pretty much in the way he describes. I just don't agree with the importance he attaches to rear lens caps. But this is one of those areas where you can take his advice or ignore it according to your own preferences. So that sort of amuses but doesn't annoy me. > Rita mentioned the Nikon 105 VR "review" from Rockwell. If you have a > look, you'll find he just briefly picked up the lense at PMA 2006 and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's just wrong on every level. I certainly don't disagree with you there. I've read I think only a couple of Rockwell's articles before this particular thread, and had not seen that sort of thing. Neil >> tripod since I cannot imagine anyone doing a test like that hand held. > > Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined > that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means > nobody else could figure. He did? Where? Everything I have seen posted by him considers the 18-55 as junk. > It's sideways motion blur, looks like. > > Rockwell wants you to buy a lens through one of his click throughs. > Most people aren't going to buy the lenses over $1,000, so touting > cheaper lenses is going to get him more click throughs. He could have > not let the tripod settle before taking the shot. Do you really think that Rockwell makes much money off of those click-throughs? I suspect that at best, it pays for the hosting of his site. > I don't believe Jeremy is getting a commission for his > recommendations. I doubt Rockwell gets a whole lot either ... although I suspect he might get the occasional sample for free. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > He did? Where? Everything I have seen posted by him considers the 18-55 as > junk. If you want to follow Rockwell, I'm going to stop arguing with you. Listen to whoever you want; buy whatever you want. SignatureRebecca Ore >> He did? Where? Everything I have seen posted by him considers the 18-55 as >> junk. > > If you want to follow Rockwell, I'm going to stop arguing with you. > Listen to whoever you want; buy whatever you want. I don't think you were arguing much with me ... in fact, I believe this is your first reply to me [in this thread anyway]. In any event, I have seen him bash that lens in other lens reviews, but in the one posted directly about the 18-55, he seems to give it mild praise. Although he does indicate he likes it as value for the money, being rather sharp throughout the focal range and light weight. I was actually surprised that he ever supported the lense even that much after other comments I have read of his (i.e. cheap lens with AF-S that isn't a true AF-S). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined >> that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means >> nobody else could figure. > >He did? Where? Everything I have seen posted by him considers the 18-55 as >junk. You must be confusing two different Kens. >>> Well, if anyone could, Ken Rockwell could. After all, he determined >>> that the D50 kit lens was better than the D70/D200 kit lens by means [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You must be confusing two different Kens. You aren't too far off ... I was confusing two different Ken reviews. The review of the 18-55 rather supports the lens [for its price, sharpness and weight are alright ... as a broad generalization], but in another lens review I see him bash the 18-55 as it not being a viable alternative to anything [hmm ... now which review did I see that in]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>>He did? Where? Everything I have seen posted by him considers the 18-55 as >>>junk. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I see him bash the 18-55 as it not being a viable alternative to anything [hmm >... now which review did I see that in]. Funny, I don't recall seeing any reviews where he bashes the 18-55. Got a link? In fact, he often praises it above known better lenses and plays down great lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 which based on his review I doubt he has ever used beyond looking at it in a camera shop. How can he claim a test review of something he has never used? Think my question is odd? Then read his "joke of a test" reviews, such as the Nikon 50 f/1.8D, 35-70, or 70-180 where he recommends them but says he didn't test them and in some cases hasn't even touched them. The more you read his so-called "reviews", the more laughable he becomes. I fail to see how anyone with experience can condone his site. And I can understand why some people reply with hostility towards Rockwell. The guy could use a swift kick in the cojones... > Funny, I don't recall seeing any reviews where he bashes the 18-55. Got > a link? I can't seem to find any link to that; perhaps he has updated his site. Anyway, I can't support my statement so I retract it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Funny, I don't recall seeing any reviews where he bashes the 18-55. Got >> a link? > >I can't seem to find any link to that; perhaps he has updated his >site. Anyway, I can't support my statement so I retract it. Perhaps you were thinking of another lense? > I don't recall whether he mentioned it, but I assume he must have used a > tripod since I cannot imagine anyone doing a test like that hand held. Don't assume anything with him. See what he has to say about the Boltzmann constant: "Today's sensors and amplifiers operate pretty close to the limits of physics described by Boltzmann's constant which means that pixel size, impedance and temperature define the ultimate noise level". From http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm This is among the worst examples of half-understood facts I can think of. No problem with not understanding something, but why try to pass oneself off as an expert? He takes nice ph |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message