[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282661885' post='2107']
NOW;;; THAT IS THE KIND OF ADVICE THAT MY LIMITED BRAIN CAPACITY CAN DEAL WITH <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> WHY DID I NOT THINK OF THA BEFORE? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> ONCE IT HAS BEEN SAID? IT SEEMS SO UTTERLY OBVIOUS. THANK YOU EDGE FOR SAVING ME A LOT OF HAIR SCRATCHING!!! I GUESS FOLLOWING YOUR ADVICE IN DAILY LIFE WOULD BE A LITTLE LIKE "LIVING ON THE EDGE"?? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />
[/quote]
Sssh... they're sleeping.
According to that principle, we should move to Chad, drive Ford, eat pie, and listen to Pink. Aaaahhh... dunno that I like Pink enough for that.
On the other hand, I know some third-party lens manufacturers who could do with a dose of that principle.
-Lars
Coming back from La-la land, how do I know which Nikon lenses are high quality when I look at their list? Is there some sense in all their letters or do I just have to look and judge by the prices?
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282671438' post='2113']
Coming back from La-la land, how do I know which Nikon lenses are high quality when I look at their list? Is there some sense in all their letters or do I just have to look and judge by the prices?
[/quote]
You can't tell from their list as such, though the price is somewhat of an indicator. You can (very) generally expect fixed-aperture zooms to be of higher quality than equivalent variable-aperture ones, shorter zoom ranges to be higher quality than longer zoom ranges, and larger aperture lenses to be higher quality than equivalent smaller aperture ones. You can read the reviews (for the appropriate lenses) here and the user comments on slrgear.com to get an impression of them. Same goes for Canon lenses: even though the L marking supposedly indicates the highest quality, it doesn't always indicate the best bang for the buck.
-Lars
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282671438' post='2113']
Coming back from La-la land, how do I know which Nikon lenses are high quality when I look at their list? Is there some sense in all their letters or do I just have to look and judge by the prices?
[/quote]
The Gold-Ring Nikkors are considered their pro-build lenses.
There is only one bad nikon lens: the old 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR when used on FF. Apart from that they are all up to par. Really, choose your lenses first by focal length, second by aperture, third by features, VR and SWM, foruth by cost, weight and size. If after ticking off these points you can still choose between two lenses you buy the optically better one. (It is very unlikly that you will be left with a choice after that, but if you are willing to use manual focus lenses, zeiss may have an advantage over Nikon in the wideangle area, but I am not sure if this is indeed the case, better ask somebody else if they are an option for you ) .
IF you put optical first without regard to your needs, you will just compromise your creativity because you will be shooting with a lens which is wonderfully sharp but may not allow you to shoot your style. Really, I submit to agencies (www.alamy.com), Art galleries (www.seenby.com) and my pictures get printed larger than 20x30inches (50x75cm) on a regular basis. If you know whta you are doing, almost every modern lens will be good enough, even when it physically doesnt take "full advantage " of the sensor resolution, as photozone likes to put it sometimes. A good lens doenst even save you form post processing, Distortion, vignetting, and CA correction has to be done even for the best lenses.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1282719657' post='2134']
There is only one bad nikon lens: the old 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR when used on FF. Apart from that they are all up to par. Really, choose your lenses first by focal length, second by aperture, third by features, VR and SWM, foruth by cost, weight and size. If after ticking off these points you can still choose between two lenses you buy the optically better one. (It is very unlikly that you will be left with a choice after that, but if you are willing to use manual focus lenses, zeiss may have an advantage over Nikon in the wideangle area, but I am not sure if this is indeed the case, better ask somebody else if they are an option for you ) .
IF you put optical first without regard to your needs, you will just compromise your creativity because you will be shooting with a lens which is wonderfully sharp but may not allow you to shoot your style. Really, I submit to agencies (www.alamy.com), Art galleries (www.seenby.com) and my pictures get printed larger than 20x30inches (50x75cm) on a regular basis. If you know whta you are doing, almost every modern lens will be good enough, even when it physically doesnt take "full advantage " of the sensor resolution, as photozone likes to put it sometimes. A good lens doenst even save you form post processing, Distortion, vignetting, and CA correction has to be done even for the best lenses.
[/quote]
Thank you very much. This is good practical advice that I understand. I will never become a pixlepeeper anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> Now, are all the Nikon lenses weather protected, because I want good optical lenses but also that I can use in any weather? Regards lupus
Sorry, I dont know about that better ask MArkus. But all lenses, even if not weather sealed, withstand a slight drizzle or light snow without any problems, if you wipe the barrel before putting the lens back into your bag. Only if you intend to shoot in pourring rain for a prolonged period of time do you need weather sealed lenses. And dont forget, if your body isnt sealed, there is no point having a sealed lens.
For example I have been shooting with the canon 17-85 for years in misty , rainy weather and never had a problem. Of couse you have to take a little bit care and wipe any drops of rain from the barrel, particularly if the barrel extends and drops may get sucked into it. But I never found this to be a problem. Really weather sealed lenses are mostly used by professional sport or wildlife shooters who cant their camera into the bag between shots and keep them exposed to the elements for hours without protection.
As jenbenn says. I always have a Rainsleeve with me, just in case. Cheap, jolly, works well <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />. It'll fit my camera and a 100-400, and will keep everything completely dry in case of downpours <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1282740191' post='2153']
Sorry, I dont know about that better ask MArkus. But all lenses, even if not weather sealed, withstand a slight drizzle or light snow without any problems, if you wipe the barrel before putting the lens back into your bag. Only if you intend to shoot in pourring rain for a prolonged period of time do you need weather sealed lenses. And dont forget, if your body isnt sealed, there is no point having a sealed lens.
For example I have been shooting with the canon 17-85 for years in misty , rainy weather and never had a problem. Of couse you have to take a little bit care and wipe any drops of rain from the barrel, particularly if the barrel extends and drops may get sucked into it. But I never found this to be a problem. Really weather sealed lenses are mostly used by professional sport or wildlife shooters who cant their camera into the bag between shots and keep them exposed to the elements for hours without protection.
[/quote]
Can one say the same about Canon , Sigma and Tamron lenses? I seem to hear comments about Nikon being better protected in general! Not that I am likely to stand out in pouring rain for any amount of time, but I am in this envious position of being able to choose completely freely (even if that sometimes is not so easy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> )and therefore I feel like I need to be as well informed as I can.
Another question, Nikon France has a very well organised set of courses on the various aspects of photography. I have not been able to find anything similar organized by Canon? Do you know of anything?
At least for canon lenses I can vouch that I never had rain problems. I have been shooting with canon for over 10 years and dragged my equipment from the dusty Australian and Indian deserts up to the mountains of the Himalaya without any problems. No dust in the lenses and no water damage.
With Nikon I know that they equip some of their pro-sumer lenses with rubber seals at the lens mount. I am not sure what the point of this is because the rest of the barrel of pro-sumer lenses isnt sealed. Of course most modern nikon professional lenses are fully sealed. Canon L lenses are almost all weather sealed including mount seals (the exception being old L lenses like the 70-200 f/4 non-IS).
Sigma and Tamron lenses are not sealed per se but I never had any weather related problems with them ( Used Sigma 70-200 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8). With regards to weather sealing they are as good as canon or nikon consumer lenses.
However with sigma I had miserable Af experince and the build quality was just crap. Of course while new their lenses feel nice and solid. But my 70-200 lost lots of its EX-paint over the time and the HSM motor started making squeaking noises. In addition Af could not be calibrated beccause it backfokused at one focal length and front-focused at others. Their was also a focus shift when stopping down. USelss piece of crap.
Tamron was a very good lens. extremly sharp and precise fokus. I just hated the loud motor which was a nuisance in quiet places so I got rid of the lens. Taking about third party lenses, Tokina's lens are very nicely build and their wideangle lenses are just great. In general I would howver strongly adivise to buy only original lenses. Unless of course you need somthing canon or nikon dont make such as an 8-16mm lens or an 11-16 f/ 2.8 or a 50-150mm.
|
