[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, that's the problem with zoom lenses. Never really consistent across the focal length range. With prime lenses there is only one to contend with, and it's always the same quality. For better or worse. -Ed

It's just the nature of lenses in general and it takes time to learn all the qualities of a lens. Even a prime will behave differently at different f-stops and sometimes focus distances.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuarreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!

Thanks for this link. Portfolios like Radcliffe's have always been really inspiring to me as a photographer. To see his use of composition and lighting elements in simple yet powerful combination is exactly the kind of thing that gets my eye working better. We can learn; we can grow and improve.

 

[Towert7]

Well, I had a lot of free time today so I decided to try out my 18-200VR again.

It is pretty nice at it's max telephoto focal length, but the pictures I took at the wide end where horribly blurry. Nothing like what I could expect from my other lenses. Colors were also lacking quite a bit.

Wow........ These new primes have really spoiled me. I remember when my 18-200VR was the best I had.

In other news, I'm having fun using the nikon 60mm micro. It's darn sharp, which I love! Like others have said, you do have to get very close to do macro, which can be a pain.... especially when you don't like bees all that much. ^_^

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Yeah, it can be tough to use the 18-200 when there are better lenses about. Although I took it to Can Jam with me, I only found one use for it, in the 100+ shots I took, namely capturing a shot in Mikhail's amazingly dark room. Other than that VR-needing situation, it just sat. It's hard for me to use it on outdoor (i.e. good light) pictures any more, as it's only marginally sharper than my digicam (Fuji E900). I almost certainly will replace the 18-200, but I just can't decide on what to replace it with.

 

[lan]

You have a gap from 36-179mm right?

I like the 55-200VR. It's cheap, light, small, and pretty good. But it's a cheaply built lens and some people may not like that.

 

[bigshot]

If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere. Mine is nice and sharp with great color. I've shot in a bunch of different situations with it with no problems at all.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere.

Well.............................................. .
All of my primes just give me a much sharper picture vs. the 18-200VR. I don't know, but I personally really like sharp pictures. I also love colors, and again the primes just give me better results, which doesn't make sense to me but........... it seems to be the case.

I took some similar shots today with my 60mm, so I'll have to compare sharpness and color.

 

[GTRacer]

Well primes will usually give better results compared to zooms... It's a tradeoff between versatility and image quality.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You have a gap from 36-179mm right? I like the 55-200VR. It's cheap, light, small, and pretty good. But it's a cheaply built lens and some people may not like that.

Yeah, as crazy as it sounds, that's my gap at the moment, not counting the 18-200, lol. It works for what I do though, as the 180 is good for sports and portraits, the 35 for product and general photography, and the 10-20 is now my meat & potatoes scenic lens. Perhaps the simplest tweak to my kit would be adding an 85 1.8 for another perspective control outdoors, and looser portraits. I'm pondering that among other options. The Sigma 50-150 looks intriguing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere. Mine is nice and sharp with great color. I've shot in a bunch of different situations with it with no problems at all.

My issue with it is that I feel the shots I take with it could have been better looking than they result (inc. PP). It was a fun lens to learn my preferences with, and the VR can come in handy, but it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was a fun lens to learn my preferences with, and the VR can come in handy, but it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs.

Same feelings here.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well.............................................. . All of my primes just give me a much sharper picture vs. the 18-200VR.

How big are you printing them out?

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs.

I find the most valuable thing about equipment is having the right lens at the right time. Many pictures last for only a second. If you have to reach in your bag and swap lenses, a lot of them would be gone. I can see avoiding the 18-200 for studio portrait work or architectural or wide landscapes you shoot on sticks, but for a ton of purposes beyond that, it's invaluable. I can't see any difference between primes and zooms unless I shoot grids and blow them up huge in photoshop. (I admit, I don't do that a lot.) With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all.

Personally, I wouldn't be without my point and shoot Olympus 3030 either. There are certain situations where a tiny difference in optical quality isn't as important as being able to quickly and inconspicuously get a shot. The equipment has to serve me as a photographer. I'm not interested in coddling equipment for the sake of stuff you can't see unless you really look for it. If you have an 18-200 and you aren't using it, sell it, because there are plenty of photographers who will get great use out of it.

That said, I have seen some bad lenses. My old 43-86 is a mess. But the 18-200 is one of the best designed zooms I've ever seen. I haven't been as excited about a new zoom since the old Vivitar series one 70-210 macro back in the late 70s.

See ya
Steve

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find the most valuable thing about equipment is having the right lens at the right time. Many pictures last for only a second. If you have to reach in your bag and swap lenses, a lot of them would be gone. I can see avoiding the 18-200 for studio portrait work or architectural or wide landscapes you shoot on sticks, but for a ton of purposes beyond that, it's invaluable. I can't see any difference between primes and zooms unless I shoot grids and blow them up huge in photoshop. (I admit, I don't do that a lot.) With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all. Personally, I wouldn't be without my point and shoot Olympus 3030 either. There are certain situations where a tiny difference in optical quality isn't as important as being able to quickly and inconspicuously get a shot. The equipment has to serve me as a photographer. I'm not interested in coddling equipment for the sake of stuff you can't see unless you really look for it. If you have an 18-200 and you aren't using it, sell it, because there are plenty of photographers who will get great use out of it. That said, I have seen some bad lenses. My old 43-86 is a mess. But the 18-200 is one of the best designed zooms I've ever seen. I haven't been as excited about a new zoom since the old Vivitar series one 70-210 macro back in the late 70s. See ya Steve

Damn it all to heck Steve! I agree 100% with the above (assuming all lens elements and assembly are of same quality). And, yes, I totally grok your Vivitar analogy.

Yes, yes, yes, above all: get the shot.

-m

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif How big are you printing them out? See ya Steve

usually 4x6'in.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all.

For you maybe..... for me........ there is a night and day difference. The 18-200VR is rubbish compared to some of my primes (in my opinion, of course. ^_^ ).