[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it comes down to the expectations of the person. For some, the dx lenses will meet their expectations (some love them), for others they are just seen as toys. I've never had a DX lens that I was very happy with. They all seem to have their quirks for me.

You're dodging the question. Compare apples to apples, not apples to bananas. You said image quality wasn't as good as "pro" lenses, not that image quality wasn't as good as FX pro lenses; the 17-55mm DX is the only "pro" equivalent of the consumer 18-55mm DX. Take a look at the comprehensive testing done over at Photozone of the older 18-55mm II vs the 17-55mm (Welcome to Photozone!), the numbers are comparable and your blanket statement is fallible.

You say the 18-55mm is lacking, even when stopped down, the numbers and my experience with both says otherwise. I've given you proof of my point, lets see proof of yours. It's easy to make blanket statements without giving anything to back them up.

 

[vajrasattva]

i'm a nikon fan despite using a fujifilm body

been meddling with nikon lenses for a long time..

nikon kit lenses for DX bodies have surprisingly good resolution, the only reason why i would pay more for a 17-55 etc, is just for the aperture

 

[skyline889]

@ Towert

For the toy analogy, you yourself said we are talking image quality here, not build quality. I'm well aware of the fact that the 18-55mm feels like a toy compared to the 17-55mm. I'm aware that AF speed isn't as fast, that it's a full stop slower than the 17-55mm, and that manual focusing with the dinky, twist front barrel is ridiculous, but none of that has anything to do with the image quality of the lens. Anyone who spends this little money on a lens expects these trade-offs.

The only thing the 18-55mm VR has going against itself in terms of image quality is poorer quality control compared to the "pro" 17-55mm. Volume is higher and QC isn't as stringent with their consumer products so you're more likely to get a bad copy. But even if you do, who cares? Just exchange it for a new one. Hell, you could throw it in the trash and buy several new ones and still come out ahead of the guy who bought the "pro" 17-55mm. If you get a good copy, the image quality is just as good if not better than the "pro" 17-55mm.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif @ Towert Volume is higher and QC isn't as stringent with their consumer products so you're more likely to get a bad copy.

Nikkors have quite good quality control, especially on their lenses built like tanks.
This is my main reason for continuing to buy nikkors again and again.

 

[h.rav]

^ I encountered at least 2-3 bad copies for one lens, especially the 24-70 f/2.8.
I want my lenses to be as close to perfect copies as possible. I usually ended up swapping them two to three times to get the 'perfect' copy. Most of them usually have focusing issues. I still consider Nikon QC to be quite good. My experiences with Canon glasses were much worse - I no longer use any Canons.

 

[dj_mocok]

Two or three copies before you received your good copy seems rather odd, especially when we're talking about pro grade lenses. Are you sure it's not just in your mind?

 

[h.rav]

^ No, I actually tested them side by side. When I visited B&H in NYC, I tested multiple lenses to get the copy that I wanted. That's why I suggested you to test the Zeiss 100 on a flat brick wall, because I found one that has two soft corners. Like my audio gears, if it can't be measured then it's not there.

 

[dj_mocok]

Nah my Zeiss is perfectly fine, I looked at full size of some of my pictures taken at infinity, they all looked sharp everywhere. Not that my S5 can resolve the lens' maximum clarity anyway....
I've never found any problem with my lenses so far.
To make a really accurate test is actually not as simple as taking a brickwall picture, that's why I can't be bothered. If my pictures look fine, then it's fine for me. Plus if there's something wrong with the picture, I'm pretty sure I'll notice it soon anyway.

 

[dj_mocok]

Now Redcarmoose, show us some samples taken with that long 300mm f/4.5, so far we've only seen pictures of lens itself. Or are you using it to club baby seals instead of taking pictures with it?

By the way I also saw a 300mm ED f/4 AFS (grey colour version) selling for US$1350. Too bad I don't need long tele, or else I'd probably buy it.

 

[dj_mocok]

Hey you guys might wanna read this:

"My lens is soft and backfocuses"

 

[Redcarmoose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now Redcarmoose, show us some samples taken with that long 300mm f/4.5, so far we've only seen pictures of lens itself. Or are you using it to club baby seals instead of taking pictures with it? By the way I also saw a 300mm ED f/4 AFS (grey colour version) selling for US$1350. Too bad I don't need long tele, or else I'd probably buy it.

So I'm driving around at night and I got an urge to try my new lens. I am having Kodak's B/W pushed from 400asa to 800asa. It is the stuff you develop in C-41 not TriX like I am used to. This C-41 development stuff was all I could find near!

Anyways I'm having it put on disk and may post results if not too dismal. Ha Ha. Soon I'll have some digital with the D-40 that I can post too. This lens is strange as it has a focus setting past infinity. Super cool small depth of field that lets you showcase elements in the composition.

 

[taishimizu]

@redcarmoose - for some lenses, temperature change can shift the point at which focus at infinity is reached which is why the lens can focus past infinity. It allows you to get to infinity at any temperature. It makes focusing more annoying though.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taishimizu /img/forum/go_quote.gif @redcarmoose - for some lenses, temperature change can shift the point at which focus at infinity is reached which is why the lens can focus past infinity. It allows you to get to infinity at any temperature. It makes focusing more annoying though.

Wow, THX. So ED glass also does not need adjusting for infrared it looks like. So no marks. Not that I'm going to shoot infrared film or have the D40 kit converted over with the main film plane sensor. I'm from another age of photography where we really loved to focus manually. Maybe asa is not used any more. Haha. What we went from American Standards Association to International Standards Organization?

 

[bigshot]

Stopped down, most modern lenses have excellent image quality. The primary reasons to go with pro lenses are speed, special coatings to reduce flare, build quality, focusing speed, bokeh characteristics and features.

"Pro" lenses do not make "pro" photographers. A truly professional photographer can get excellent images with just about any properly functioning camera. Professionalism is about making informed choices, not how much they paid for their rig.

DJ M is correct. If you find that a lot of lenses you buy don't focus properly, it's likely that your camera is out of alignment and the lenses are perfectly fine.

 

[dj_mocok]

That's also one of the reasons why I prefer manual focus too. With manual focus I can just look at the viewfinder and judge by myself when to stop focusing to nail the perfect focus. Of course it's much more doable with FF cams but it is still doable with mine.