If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 28-300mm FX Format lens on a DX camera?
Kenan wrote in message ... Thanks to David Ruether and C J Campbell for helping me. I think I'm going to return to the 28-300 lens and I will order the NIKKOR 18-200mm VR II . Although the 440 zoom range of the 28-300 is tempting as I like to shoot wildlife, birds, etc., I'm afraid I will miss the wide end of the 18-200. To have just 42mm as the widest isn't going to work for me, and I'd like to travel with just one lens. No really wide-ratio zoom is likely to be as sharp as any of the best zooms of much shorter zoom ratio; that's just the nature of the beast and reflects the compromises that zoom lens designers have to make. I have always found my Nikon 18-200mm VR to be sharp enough for my purposes when I just want to take an all-in-one lens, and I expect most other users would agree. You might want to look into the Tamron 18-270mm VC. I got one of these not long ago and really like it a lot, maybe better than the Nikon lens. According to DPReview's lens tests it is generally better than the 18-200mm Nikkor, especially wide open at or near the long end which is important for your purposes (wildlife, etc.). The Nikkor is slightly better wide open at the short end, but stopped down to f/8 the Tamron again is just a hair better. Note that I have not compared my two lenses side by side, I'm just going by DPR's tests but they seem to comport with my experience with both lenses. Tamron's VC seems to me at least as good as Nikon's VR and probably better (don't know about VR II since my 18-200 Nikkor is the original VR). Again, these two lenses (11x and 15x zoom range respectively) are not ever likely to be as sharp over their zoom ranges as a good 3x or so zoom lens. The Tamron seems the better lens optically but the difference is not great. If you were dissatisfied with the sharpness of your Nikon 18-200 (unless you just got a really bad one, which is a possibility), I question whether you would be happy with *any* wide-ratio zoom. I'm curious to know exactly *how* you found the lens unsharp. Was it only at some particular focal lengths or apertures, or in every shot? Was it unsharp when using flash? Have you tried shooting some detailed, high-contrast subject from a solid tripod, with VR turned OFF? What I'm getting at is that you need to test the lens itself on the camera, not the lens *together with* your shooting technique. If there is some fault with the latter, no new lens is likely to give you better results. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | Thomas | Digital Photography | 17 | July 25th 04 12:06 AM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | W Chan | Digital Photography | 5 | July 22nd 04 03:05 PM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | W Chan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | July 22nd 04 03:05 PM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | D.R. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 21st 04 11:30 PM |