Nikon lenses: 16-85mm v. 18-105mm
From a user standpoint I would agree with http://www.bythom.com comments
about the 200mm focal length of the 18-200 Nikon not being all that useful on an everyday basis compared to the elephantine/SUV size and heft of the lens. Whether or not having a 16 or 18mm focal length at the wide end makes any real difference is a matter of personal choice. How many people have 10-20ish wide zooms and actually use them with any frequency? One thing that is way too underemphasized in many discussions of these long consumer zooms is their inescapable problems with vignetting at their wider apertures. This is far more apparent in images than linear (barrel/pincushion) distortion because you will see it in, for example, every landscape that includes expanses of sky shot at the wider apertures. Since most of us, particularly when travelling, default to the otherwise accurate program exposure mode these lenses end up producing a lot of sharp and contrasty images with darkish corners. Vignetting is such a ubiquitous problem with modern zooms that I presume this is why Adobe includes correcting filters for vignetting in both the raw converter and desktop. It is not always practical to shoot at f8 or smaller apertures even when shooting in aperture preferred mode. Hence while these lenses may have a maximum aperture of f3.5 they functionally have maximum apertures of f5.6 or f8 in outdoor use or when shooting against light colored backgrounds, not much different than a 1950s era camera. |
Nikon lenses: 16-85mm v. 18-105mm
"trouble" wrote:
How many people have 10-20ish wide zooms and actually use them with any frequency? I use my 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor most days (on a D700 body). I bought it in the certain knowledge that it would get a lot of use, and it does. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com