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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 5, 2010, 2:23 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Belize & UK
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadshot View Post
tooing and throwing
"To-ing" and Fro-ing" come from going TO something and then coming back FROM it.
peterbj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2010, 9:14 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadshot View Post
Dafiryde,
Theres nothing very technical about it.The front lens just unscrews in the same way as a filter.It's slightly stiffer though plus there is a very thin washer/sealer that the lens beds down onto, it will fall off without you noticing if you dont watch out.
The only tricky bit is putting the lens back on, because it would be very very easy to put it on with a crossed thread, as it is an extremely fine thread. I backed the thread up until it clicked before screwing it on and it took me a few tries before it aligned up correctly.When it's properly lined up it tightens very smoothly and easily,so be very careful "gently does it" is the password. Do not use any force or you will be in deep do do. I am very gentle with my hands being a musician and artist.
I hadn't had the lens very long when I noticed a speck on the inside of the lens, so it may have been there from new? the second time was earlier this year when cleaning my filter I found a speck inside the lens, perhaps it got there when I cleaned it the first time. I'm not sure that either of the specks would have shown up in a photo ( maybe in certain lighting) but I'm a fusspot. So I'm told by the other half.:-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
It's generally not worth the effort to remove the dust (especially yourself as this voids your warranty). Dust or even small scratches won't affect image quality.

Thanks its nice to know a DIY

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 6:18 PM   #33
Member
 
elliotm00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 45
Default

Is the only issue that some people have with this lens is with barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion? If the photos were postprocessed with something like this, would that "fix" most of the imperfections? Or are there sharpness issues that software can't fix as easily? Like everyone else, I'm thinking about replacing the 18-55 and 55-200 with this for the convenience.

Thanks!
elliotm00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 6:39 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elliotm00 View Post
Is the only issue that some people have with this lens is with barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion? If the photos were postprocessed with something like this, would that "fix" most of the imperfections? Or are there sharpness issues that software can't fix as easily? Like everyone else, I'm thinking about replacing the 18-55 and 55-200 with this for the convenience.

Thanks!
The lens is plenty sharp, as are most current lenses. Most sharpness issues come from too slow shutter speeds/poor technique. Unless you are printing huge, most modern lenses will do the job. Distortion on the other hand isn't easily fixed at the wide end. However, this really isn't a problem unless you are shooting architecture, brick walls, or test charts.

Strictly speaking, the 18-55/55-200 combo is optically better. In real world use, most users won't notice a difference.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 6:52 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
The lens is plenty sharp, as are most current lenses. Most sharpness issues come from too slow shutter speeds/poor technique. Unless you are printing huge, most modern lenses will do the job. Distortion on the other hand isn't easily fixed at the wide end. However, this really isn't a problem unless you are shooting architecture, brick walls, or test charts.

Strictly speaking, the 18-55/55-200 combo is optically better. In real world use, most users won't notice a difference.

To be honest i dont know what to look for, all i can see is the 18-200 looks the same to me on the monitor as compared to the 17-55/70-300 combo

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 8:26 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
To be honest i dont know what to look for, all i can see is the 18-200 looks the same to me on the monitor as compared to the 17-55/70-300 combo

Dave
T&T
I think that's what I was trying to say

If you view your pics at 100% or shoot test charts or brick walls you'll see the limitations. Real world, normal print size, normal viewing size, most people won't notice a difference.

I like the 18-200. It stays on my D5k. I don't use it for paid jobs, but it works fine and is a convenient solution for everyday use.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 8:51 PM   #37
Member
 
elliotm00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
I think that's what I was trying to say

If you view your pics at 100% or shoot test charts or brick walls you'll see the limitations. Real world, normal print size, normal viewing size, most people won't notice a difference.

I like the 18-200. It stays on my D5k. I don't use it for paid jobs, but it works fine and is a convenient solution for everyday use.
2 Questions:

1) The software I pointed out will straighten out brick walls and test charts. If the limitation of the 18-200 is line distortion, then this is correctable. If it is something different, then it isn't. I guess that's more of a comment than a question.

2) Curious: what DO you use for paid jobs?
elliotm00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 9:43 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elliotm00 View Post
2 Questions:

1) The software I pointed out will straighten out brick walls and test charts. If the limitation of the 18-200 is line distortion, then this is correctable. If it is something different, then it isn't. I guess that's more of a comment than a question.
There is pretty complex wave/mustache distortion at the wide end which isn't easily correctable and if you look close there is pincushion distortion throughout the entire focal range. I have PT lens and it works well. The only bad thing is when correcting distortion, you end up needing to crop and throw away some of the image, which creates framing issues you have to be able to visualize when shooting. And since there is distortion throughout the entire focal range of the lens, you are effectively throwing away parts of every image. And if you already crop a lot, you've reduced you're ability to print large even more.

Quote:
2) Curious: what DO you use for paid jobs?
I use mostly two lenses...the sigma 18-50 f2.8, and sigma 50-150 f2.8. For daylight sports, I use a nikon 70-300 VR as well.

Last edited by rjseeney; Dec 13, 2010 at 9:52 PM.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2010, 12:02 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

not sure how this will fit into this topic , but one thing i have noticed is that when viewing a pic on the D300s LCD and zooming in on the pic i must say yes there is a difference in the image quality. so now i have a question that i would really like to have answered.
how is it that you dont see that crisp IQ on the computer monitor that you would see on the camera lcd ?

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2010, 6:02 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
deadshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elliotm00 View Post
Is the only issue that some people have with this lens is with barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion? If the photos were postprocessed with something like this, would that "fix" most of the imperfections? Or are there sharpness issues that software can't fix as easily? Like everyone else, I'm thinking about replacing the 18-55 and 55-200 with this for the convenience.

Thanks!
I dont profess to be professional or even semi professional so perhaps my standards are lower but my D5000 has an inbuilt straightener in the retouch menu, which works quite well. Although I usually put things right in Elements if I'm not happy.
I just love not having to swap/juggling lenses thereby missing shots. Been there done that.
__________________
D5100 +18-200mVR Nikkor lens.
SB400 Flash, ML-L3 Remote.
SB 700 Flash
Holster + Shoulder Bag.
Beike carbon 4 section tripod/monopod
Gorillapod SLR Zoom + BH1 ball head
Panasonic FZ1000
Panasonic FZ200
Nissin D i40 Flash
+ SLR Gorillapod
deadshot 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 1:23 AM.