[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300097033' post='6731']
I know he has a D700. And that's how it was meant: if I needed such a lens (as a single lens travel solution), I would rather invest in a second (DX) body with 18-200 VR instead of a 28-300 VR.
-- Markus
[/quote]
OK understood, but it was not very clear and it is an expensive alternative!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300057351' post='6719']
Personally I would prefer a D700 with 28-300 VR over an APS-C body with 18-200 VR anytime, since I have never been impressed by the performance of the 18-200 VR and the images I have seen from the 28-300 VR do not half bad.
[/quote]
Sorry, you seem to miss again. According to first tests from trusted sites the 28-300 strugless much more on full frame body than the 18-200 does on APS-C cameras.
This is just the sharpness (measured on 2 samples):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon28-300f35-56g/ff/tloader.htm
Compared to 18-200:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon18-200f35-56vr2/tloader.htm
Not showing distortion etc. here, which seems also worse in 28-300 btw... To get me right, I´m very fond of ultrazooms for travelling purposes when they are well-done compromise (which is 18-200II, IMHO). I´m afraid the 28-300 is not that one (nor is any current ultrazoom on full frame, actually - probably too much of challange here).
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300104274' post='6743']
Sorry, you seem to miss again. According to first tests from trusted sites the 28-300 strugless much more on full frame body than the 18-200 does on APS-C cameras.
This is just the sharpness (measured on 2 samples):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon28-300f35-56g/ff/tloader.htm
Compared to 18-200:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon18-200f35-56vr2/tloader.htm
Not showing distortion etc. here, which seems also worse in 28-300 btw... To get me right, I´m very fond of ultrazooms for travelling purposes when they are well-done compromise (which is 18-200II, IMHO). I´m afraid the 28-300 is not that one (nor is any current ultrazoom on full frame, actually - probably too much of challange here).
[/quote]
I am not talking about SLRgear findings, just the actual IMAGES I have seen that have been taken with the 18-200 VR and actual images being taken with the 28-300 VR.
I have never thought "wow, that is quite good for such a lens" with 18-200 VR images, and I have to say I have been impressed by some images taken with the 28-300 VR. Why that is, and what that says about the testing methodology \, I can't say.
Hi Markus:
How is the combination AF-s 105 2.8vr + TC-14E II? I guess that the larger magnification the more loss of image quality so could this combination give better quality than AF-s 105 2.8vr + TC-17E II?
Frank
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300108900' post='6751']
Hi Markus:
How is the combination AF-s 105 2.8vr + TC-14E II? I guess that the larger magnification the more loss of image quality so could this combination give better quality than AF-s 105 2.8vr + TC-17E II?
Frank
[/quote]
It is true that the bigger the focal length multiplication is, the bigger the impact is on at least the resolution of the lens. A tele converter crops the optics of the lens, you "smear" the resolving power of the center of the lens over a bigger area of the sensor.
With 2x TC's often you get a clear resolution hit, only with the sharpest of lenses you do not really notice this. With good 1.4x TC's results with a sharp lens usually still give a sharp impression. 1.7x TC's are a nice compromise between 2x and 1.4x TC's.
The 1.4x TC will make the 105mm f2.8 into an 147mm f4 lens... not sure if that is long enough for you, that is for you to decide. Macro lenses take longer to focus than average, due to a longer (more precise) focus path. Try one to see if this will impact your enjoyment when using it as moderate tele or not.
I have a 1.7x TC from Soligor myself, and on my Tamron 90mm 2.8 it delivers sharp enough results (on 12mp APS-C). On my 70-200 f4, wide open, it starts to be noticeably "soft".
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300107343' post='6749']
I am not talking about SLRgear findings, just the actual IMAGES I have seen that have been taken with the 18-200 VR and actual images being taken with the 28-300 VR.
[/quote]
Whatever... OK then if your *experience* is contrary to slrgear.com findings.
03-14-2011, 04:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2011, 04:02 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300117270' post='6762']
Whatever... OK then if your *experience* is contrary to slrgear.com findings.
[/quote]
Look up the findings of slrgear for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Especially their CA findings. Compare that with actual Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 images. Compare that with findings of other measurement reviews.
Strange, that I trust my eyes more than what SLRgear puts into graphs. You should trust your eyes too, I am quite impressed with what the 28-300mm shows, IQ wise.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300112348' post='6756']
It is true that the bigger the focal length multiplication is, the bigger the impact is on at least the resolution of the lens. A tele converter crops the optics of the lens, you "smear" the resolving power of the center of the lens over a bigger area of the sensor.
With 2x TC's often you get a clear resolution hit, only with the sharpest of lenses you do not really notice this. With good 1.4x TC's results with a sharp lens usually still give a sharp impression. 1.7x TC's are a nice compromise between 2x and 1.4x TC's.
The 1.4x TC will make the 105mm f2.8 into an 147mm f4 lens... not sure if that is long enough for you, that is for you to decide. Macro lenses take longer to focus than average, due to a longer (more precise) focus path. Try one to see if this will impact your enjoyment when using it as moderate tele or not.
I have a 1.7x TC from Soligor myself, and on my Tamron 90mm 2.8 it delivers sharp enough results (on 12mp APS-C). On my 70-200 f4, wide open, it starts to be noticeably "soft".
[/quote]
Yes, then it seems that the TC-17e II is more appropriate.
Currently I have the following lenses: AF-S 16-35 f4G vr, AF 24-85 f2.8-4D, AF 80-200 f2.8D, AF 50 1.8D, AF 85 1.8D. If the AF 80-200 f2.8D were not too heavy for travel I would not consider another long FL lens.
If the 70-300vr is soft in the range 200-300mm as many have said, then I am not very interested in buying it since then it will add little to my lens set.
So far it seems the AF 105 f2.8 vr macro is the most appropriate one to consider. It is a very good macro lens, has vr and a not so big weight, and with TC-17e II I will have too Fls: 105 and 180.
Many thanks to all who have given me valuable advices.
Frank
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300104274' post='6743']
Sorry, you seem to miss again. According to first tests from trusted sites the 28-300 strugless much more on full frame body than the 18-200 does on APS-C cameras.
This is just the sharpness (measured on 2 samples):
[url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon28-300f35-56g/ff/tloader.htm"]http://www.slrgear.c.../ff/tloader.htm[/url]
Compared to 18-200:
[url="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon18-200f35-56vr2/tloader.htm"]http://www.slrgear.c...vr2/tloader.htm[/url]
Not showing distortion etc. here, which seems also worse in 28-300 btw... To get me right, I´m very fond of ultrazooms for travelling purposes when they are well-done compromise (which is 18-200II, IMHO). I´m afraid the 28-300 is not that one (nor is any current ultrazoom on full frame, actually - probably too much of challange here).
[/quote]
This only makes sense if you show the results of the 18-200 on a FF camera. Again, this guy does not have an APC and showing him results of lenses tested with an APC becomes irrelevant. And frankly, the 18-200 is no champion, even on an APC!!
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300161311' post='6785']
Yes, then it seems that the TC-17e II is more appropriate.
Currently I have the following lenses: AF-S 16-35 f4G vr, AF 24-85 f2.8-4D, AF 80-200 f2.8D, AF 50 1.8D, AF 85 1.8D. If the AF 80-200 f2.8D were not too heavy for travel I would not consider another long FL lens.
If the 70-300vr is soft in the range 200-300mm as many have said, then I am not very interested in buying it since then it will add little to my lens set.
So far it seems the AF 105 f2.8 vr macro is the most appropriate one to consider. It is a very good macro lens, has vr and a not so big weight, and with TC-17e II I will have too Fls: 105 and 180.
Many thanks to all who have given me valuable advices.
Frank
[/quote]
Frank, I don't understand you! You have a 16-35 f4, a 24-85 and a 80-200. If you buy a 70-300 Tamron, which is sharp through the range (check the tests), you get a lens weighing 750g instead of you your 80-200 at 1400g. Bingo!!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> IMO much better and much more practical than a 105 with an extender. Also half the price. You already have the 85mm, so a 105 seems pretty marginal in terms of usability.
|
