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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 12, 2010, 9:39 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

Re. 100% magnification, if you use any photo browser, typically there is an option to view at various magnifiaction levels. For e.g. in Picassa you can zoom to actual size which is the same as 100% magnification.

Also, TCav is right in that the images I posted are re-sized and do not represent the actual magnification. However, I am unfortunately a pixel peeper...and I do not further process any images that are not "near perfect" to begin with.

The comments about pro's being super critical with IQ refers to the fact that for glossy magazine spreads, especially portraits, the IQ makes a huge difference. Also check out images from Sports Illustrated, National Georgraphic, etc...I would be surprised if an all purpose zoom would make the cut. For most general use however, it is money well spent and some (IMHO).
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2010, 10:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelpee View Post
Re. 100% magnification, if you use any photo browser, typically there is an option to view at various magnifiaction levels. For e.g. in Picassa you can zoom to actual size which is the same as 100% magnification.

Also, TCav is right in that the images I posted are re-sized and do not represent the actual magnification. However, I am unfortunately a pixel peeper...and I do not further process any images that are not "near perfect" to begin with.

The comments about pro's being super critical with IQ refers to the fact that for glossy magazine spreads, especially portraits, the IQ makes a huge difference. Also check out images from Sports Illustrated, National Georgraphic, etc...I would be surprised if an all purpose zoom would make the cut. For most general use however, it is money well spent and some (IMHO).

ditto
i first bought my D90 with a 18-200, last summer. But wanted more, so this summer i got the D300s with a 17-55, 70-300, 35, and a 50. and to be honest here, i can see myself going back for a 18-200. within the next 2 weeks.
i miss the convenience, light weight and mostttttttttttttt importantlyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
very little lens changes required.
i aint no pro, dont plan to be, i will not sell to natgo any any other large magazines, i take thousands for pics, for my enjoyment, have not printed a single one in the last 5 or more years, and the quality of the 18-200 is good enough for me on a computer screen. for my friends and family who closest thing to a camera is a camera phone always hails how clean the pics look.
so for me it boiled down to what i want as compared to what i really need. tomorrow i know i could buy a D3s, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. but i really dont need that.
so what do you really need?????

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2010, 3:47 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
..i aint no pro, dont plan to be, i will not sell to natgo any any other large magazines, i take thousands for pics, for my enjoyment, have not printed a single one in the last 5 or more years, and the quality of the 18-200 is good enough for me on a computer screen. for my friends and family who closest thing to a camera is a camera phone always hails how clean the pics look....
Dave
T&T
I'm on the same boat as you

As long as the photo will remain close to perfectly sharp on the 15" computer monitor, I'm good to start.

Will try the pro lenses afterward

Down to the waiting game... wait for the D7000 or get the available D90 one?
__________________
Nikon D7000 | Nikkor 18-105mm | SB-700 | Nikkor 70-300 VR
LGWGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2010, 6:28 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
Was the chromatic aberration on 18mm and 200mm (min and max) only or?

Both ends.

See Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF AF (Tested)

See also:

Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro AF (Tested)
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM (Tested)
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR II Nikkor (Tested)

In some respects, they're better than the one I had, but in some respects they're not. And, where their ranges overlap, none of them is as good as:

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 AF (Tested)

... and they cost a lot more.
__________________
  • 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; Oct 13, 2010 at 8:20 PM. Reason: sp
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2010, 6:54 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
Down to the waiting game... wait for the D7000 or get the available D90 one?
I purchased a Nikon refurbished D90 for a great price....and then 2 weeks later they announced the D7000. That's probably why the price was so good! But the D90 is still a great camera that takes excellent pictures!
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 12:34 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 49
Default

@TCav

Thanks for the links. Still trying to fully understand the graphs

PS: I got a Sony a300 with stock lens (18-70mm) and noticed the photos I took weren't very sharp at 100% magnification Is that to be expected from this cheap camera or maybe I chose the wrong settings?


@jelpee
Mind to share where you got and how much? I might jump on the D90 instead. Wait time is killing me
__________________
Nikon D7000 | Nikkor 18-105mm | SB-700 | Nikkor 70-300 VR

Last edited by LGWGM; Oct 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM.
LGWGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 1:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
Thanks for the links. Still trying to fully understand the graphs
See How to interpret SLRgear lens test results

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
PS: I got a Sony a300 with stock lens (18-70mm) and noticed the photos I took weren't very sharp at 100% magnification Is that to be expected from this cheap camera or maybe I chose the wrong settings?
The A300 is a fine camera. The weak link in your arsenal is the Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT SAL-1870 (Tested)
__________________
  • 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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 10:21 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGWGM View Post
@TCav



@jelpee
Mind to share where you got and how much? I might jump on the D90 instead. Wait time is killing me
I sent you a private message with the details!
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2010, 7:22 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 114
Default

Is the tamron 18-270 is better than the nikon 18-200 and would a 35mm f1.8 be a good 2nd lens to both?

Last edited by Lilacfire; Oct 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM.
Lilacfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2010, 8:00 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilacfire View Post
Is the tamron 18-270 is better than the nikon 18-200 and would a 35mm f1.8 be a good 2nd lens to both?
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR II Nikkor (Tested)
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro AF (Tested)

Neither is particularly good, but the Tamron has less vignetting. They're both reasonably sharp stopped down, but they're pretty dim lenses to start with.

If you've already got the kit 18-55 lens, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 AF costs a lot less and it's better.
__________________
  • 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 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 11:39 AM.