03-14-2011, 12:55 PM
[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.
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.