What review site can I believe?

I just read reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens at DPreview and at
Cameralabs...

One said the Nikkor was crap, don't buy it, and the other said it out did the
Sigma and Tamron competitors, and is worth the price...

Any ideas or opinions on good review sites?

Thanks!

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:40:14 -0400, Leon wrote:

I just read reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens at DPreview and at
Cameralabs...

One said the Nikkor was crap, don't buy it, and the other said it out
did the Sigma and Tamron competitors, and is worth the price...

Any ideas or opinions on good review sites?

Maybe, the Sigma and Tamron are even crapier. Doesn't mean the Nikkor is
any good.

Personally, with an 11x zoom range, I'd be dubious of the Nikkor's
ability to produce good--sharp, contrasty, etc--images with low
distortion and aberration regardless of its cost.


Stef

wrote:
I just read reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens at DPreview and at
Cameralabs...

One said the Nikkor was crap, don't buy it, and the other said it out did the
Sigma and Tamron competitors, and is worth the price...

Any ideas or opinions on good review sites?

Thanks!

I never had much success at believing anything someone using the same
gear as I do said that is different to my findings. Particularly when
they use it differently and for different scenes as I do.

I use 2 of these lenses for wedding photography. One on a D90 and one on
a s5 Fuji pro. Like all consumer grade lenses they have their fair share
of barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations but produce nice, sharp
images with excellent colour saturation.

I don't have an issue with the few image flaws they produce. They are
correctable with speciality software that when added to the cost of the
lens, is still cheaper than buying a top of the range Nikon lens.

Tamron lenses (in my opinion) are plastic wonders that neither focus
fast nor last very long.

Sigma lenses are (supposedly) better quality than Tamron but having once
been a retailer of Sigma lenses I am a little hesitant to recommend
them, having witnessed both the best and worst from the brand. When they
are good, they are very good but get a lemon (as many do) and the worst
is exceptionally bad. The warranty service is not up to scratch either.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:21:07 GMT, Stefan Patric wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:40:14 -0400, Leon wrote:

I just read reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens at DPreview and at
Cameralabs...

One said the Nikkor was crap, don't buy it, and the other said it out
did the Sigma and Tamron competitors, and is worth the price...

Any ideas or opinions on good review sites?

Maybe, the Sigma and Tamron are even crapier. Doesn't mean the Nikkor is
any good.

One of the sites said they were better than the Nikkor. So in effect, the sites
are of the opposite opinion.

Personally, with an 11x zoom range, I'd be dubious of the Nikkor's
ability to produce good--sharp, contrasty, etc--images with low
distortion and aberration regardless of its cost.

That's true, but I would expect something pretty good for $900!! I wanted it
for a 'walk-around' lens but I don't think so at that price... right now I have
a Sigma and I was only interested in the Nikkor because of the VR.


Stef

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:55:09 +1000, Shon Kei wrote:

wrote:
I just read reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens at DPreview and at
Cameralabs...

One said the Nikkor was crap, don't buy it, and the other said it out did the
Sigma and Tamron competitors, and is worth the price...

Any ideas or opinions on good review sites?

Thanks!

I never had much success at believing anything someone using the same
gear as I do said that is different to my findings. Particularly when
they use it differently and for different scenes as I do.

I use 2 of these lenses for wedding photography. One on a D90 and one on
a s5 Fuji pro. Like all consumer grade lenses they have their fair share
of barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations but produce nice, sharp
images with excellent colour saturation.

Exactly which lens are you speaking of? (I have a D90 as well).

I don't have an issue with the few image flaws they produce. They are
correctable with speciality software that when added to the cost of the
lens, is still cheaper than buying a top of the range Nikon lens.

Tamron lenses (in my opinion) are plastic wonders that neither focus
fast nor last very long.

I tried a new Tamron in the store, it's 18-250 I think, and VR, but was kind of
clanky in the focusing... reminded me of my 1982 Sony Handicam... I didn't buy
it, but the VR seemed to work WHEN it decided to focus!

Sigma lenses are (supposedly) better quality than Tamron but having once
been a retailer of Sigma lenses I am a little hesitant to recommend
them, having witnessed both the best and worst from the brand. When they
are good, they are very good but get a lemon (as many do) and the worst
is exceptionally bad. The warranty service is not up to scratch either.

I have a few Sigma lenses, and so far am quite satisfied. The 28-300 is not a
sharp lens, but is a great tourist lens. (If I see something really good to
shoot I'll pull out the equivalent Nikkor...) I have the 24mm 1.8 and that's a
good lens, but mine is loose now... need to do some tests to see it that affects
the pictures. I also have the 50-500 and that's because I can't afford the
Nikkor equivalent! That lens seems to be very good at 500mm, but I have nothing
to compare... I took some amazing shots so far.