Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 7, 2010, 4:27 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I'm not interested in anecdotes.


I'm interested in the results of qualitiative analyses.
Boy, you ARE spoiling for an argument!!!

What is an anecdote?An anecdote is a short and interesting story taken from a person's past experience - or that of someone they know or have heard about

I think a "hands on experience" counts! I have tried and used those lenses. Have you? I doubt it.
So you go by what you read and they can say what they want on the internet. I've heard both good an bad about these lenses on the internet... Whoopee.
At least I can back up my talk with my pictures on my website... can you?
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon D700 w/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-4.5D ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 5:04 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I can tell from the abundance of data that I'm not interested in a superzoom lens. I started with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and a Konica Minolta (Tamron) 18-200 superzoom. I was initially pleased with theresults, and am still pleased with some of the shots I captured with it. But other times I was very disappointed when I looked at the results critically. I can correlate the poor performance I got with the test results for the lens, and I know what to look for. To date, no superzoom falls into that category.

Perhaps your subjects or shooting style don't require sharp edges. Perhaps you avoid high contrast scenes, and so don't get much chromatic aberration in your shots. Perhaps you don't use the wide end very often, or you just don't notice the distortion.

My hands-on experience correlates with objective test results. Yours don't.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 5:21 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I can tell from the abundance of data that I'm not interested in a superzoom lens. I started with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and a Konica Minolta (Tamron) 18-200 superzoom. I was initially pleased with theresults, and am still pleased with some of the shots I captured with it. But other times I was very disappointed when I looked at the results critically. I can correlate the poor performance I got with the test results for the lens, and I know what to look for. To date, no superzoom falls into that category.

Perhaps your subjects or shooting style don't require sharp edges. Perhaps you avoid high contrast scenes, and so don't get much chromatic aberration in your shots. Perhaps you don't use the wide end very often, or you just don't notice the distortion.

My hands-on experience correlates with objective test results. Yours don't.
Konica Minolta Maxxum is not in the same category as Nikon/Canon is.

Apparently you didn't look at all the pictures on my website. I have all the shots you talk about, wide, mid and long shots. Can you back up your talk with actual facts... pictures that YOU took? In fact in your avatar... your not even holding the camera properly. If that is the way you use zooms, no wonder they don't come out properly.

Obviously your old school and prefer the old ways, which is fine, but don't cram it down other folks.

We can argue all day about zooms being better or not... but the bottom line is the Photographer that is behind the camera, not so much the equipment. I've seen many photographer wannabe's with expensive equipment, but crappy or so-so shots.
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon D700 w/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-4.5D ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge

Last edited by jack55; Feb 7, 2010 at 5:24 PM.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 6:38 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack55 View Post
... Can you back up your talk with actual facts...
Facts:

BTW, when I shot my avatar, my left elbow was against a wall.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 7:07 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack55
... Can you back up your talk with actual facts...
I'm talking about ACTUAL personal use by you...
Anyone can use the internet/websites reviews.... there are just as many positive as negative ones... you just chose to post the negative ones.

You failed to mention that in 2009 two magazines, PCPhoto & American Photo listed the Tamron 18-270mm VC as the "lens of the year", over all the other lenses out there, including Nikon.
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon D700 w/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-4.5D ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge

Last edited by jack55; Feb 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 8:27 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I think both of you (TC and Jack) are completely right. This is no denying Tc's point. It has been proven over and over, and backed up with images and shots of test charts that superzooms are indeed a compromise, and yield lower IQ than primes and zooms of less ambitious range. It is a fact, and no amount of arguing will change that.

But, as Jack mentions superzooms can yield very good if not excellent IQ in their own right, and cannot be beat for convenience. And in all honesty, for most normal use the quality is fine. Only about 1/4 of all digital images get printed, and most of those are 8x10 or smaller (mostly smaller), and the rest are viewed via the web. At these sizes, many imperfections aren't noticeable or all that detrimental to the image. Unless you're a pixel peeper or a pro, or just have to have the absolute best, there is no reason not to go simple and use a superzoom.

I'm kind of in between the two. I do some pro shooting (weddings, events, sports) and have some pro (or semi pro) level glass. But for most of my family shooting, every day stuff, I typically use the Nikon 18-200.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 8:35 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
I think both of you (TC and Jack) are completely right. This is no denying Tc's point. It has been proven over and over, and backed up with images and shots of test charts that superzooms are indeed a compromise, and yield lower IQ than primes and zooms of less ambitious range. It is a fact, and no amount of arguing will change that.

But, as Jack mentions superzooms can yield very good if not excellent IQ in their own right, and cannot be beat for convenience. And in all honesty, for most normal use the quality is fine. Only about 1/4 of all digital images get printed, and most of those are 8x10 or smaller (mostly smaller), and the rest are viewed via the web. At these sizes, many imperfections aren't noticeable or all that detrimental to the image. Unless you're a pixel peeper or a pro, or just have to have the absolute best, there is no reason not to go simple and use a superzoom.

I'm kind of in between the two. I do some pro shooting (weddings, events, sports) and have some pro (or semi pro) level glass. But for most of my family shooting, every day stuff, I typically use the Nikon 18-200.
There you go... well said. I won't argue with that.
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon D700 w/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-4.5D ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 10:00 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I agree. If you're just looking to take some snapshots, post some reduced size images on the web, or shoot some video with a dSLR, superzooms will do ok. The reduced resolution masks the flaws. In fact, superzooms are probably better than other lenses for shooting video, because of the limited resolution and the extra zoom range.

BTW, I'm not certain why it was important for you to see images I shot, but you are welcome to take a look at my albums here. One of the images I posted was even captured with a superzoom.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 7, 2010 at 10:05 PM.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 10:30 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Over 90% of my shots on my website can be blown up past 8x10's as I've done it... so contrary to what some think the zooms can hold their own. Sure, maybe if you look 'real ' close with a magnifying glass you will see some flaws, where your much more expensive lenses you may not have to. I let my work speak for themselves... I don't need the internet tests to tell me otherwise. It helps that I know how to use my equipment too.

Like rjseeney said, your going to have to look real hard to tell the difference with all things being equal, such as the same pro photographer etc.

BTW TCav... I see you like Corvettes. I have a link on my site called Corvettes.
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/CORVETTES.htm
I run and manage www.CorvetteC3.com for the past 8 years too.
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon D700 w/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-4.5D ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge

Last edited by jack55; Feb 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2010, 11:02 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack55 View Post
I'm talking about ACTUAL personal use by you...
Anyone can use the internet/websites reviews.... there are just as many positive as negative ones... you just chose to post the negative ones.

You failed to mention that in 2009 two magazines, PCPhoto & American Photo listed the Tamron 18-270mm VC as the "lens of the year", over all the other lenses out there, including Nikon.
Jack,

The tamron 18-270mm VC won couple awards last year in Germany as an outstanding product of the year by couple of the germany photo mags. It is a very nice travel lens.

So it comes down to personal preferences. Some like a all in one solution.
Some like the multi lens solution.

By the way, like the vetts on your link.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:56 PM.