Re: D200


"Bill" <bill@xxx> wrote in message
news:EsadnReXhJMr6FrZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Neil Harrington wrote:

Okay, thanks. He doesn't really say the 18-55 is *better* than the 18-70,

Actually I remember he does, just not on that specific page. Hang
on...ok found it:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm

Right at the top he says the 18-55 is better. Which is essentially
false.

Interesting. You're right; he says the 18-55 is "better and cheaper."

But four paragraphs later he says of the 18-70, "This is a serious lens, not
a "kit lens" or a cheap replacement for a lens cap sold as part of a kit as
with most other cameras. The fast f/3.5 - 4.5 speed should be your clue; the
cheapies are all f/3.5 - 5.6. The 18 - 55 is a cheapie, but good."

So evidently his main reason for liking the 18-55 is that it's a "cheapie,"
and as he says elsewhere he doesn't use a midrange zoom now anyway; he has
said practically all his shooting is done with the Nikon 12-24 and a little
with the 18-200 VR. Obviously his opinions just change: he says the 18-70
"was my favorite midrange zoom for digital until the better and cheaper 18 -
55 came out" a year later. So he seems to be a strongly opinionated fellow
whose opinions swing around a lot.

That makes his advice and recommendations questionable to say the least. But
I'm seldom interested in anyone else's advice and recommendations anyway;
I'm only interested in the test results and factual comparisons, and with
those I can arrive at my own recommendations. For these I think his article
comparing the four ultrawide zooms is worthwhile, and incidentally his
conclusions comport pretty well with Photozone's tests of the same lenses,
especially his choice of the Tokina 12-24 as clearly second best to the
Nikon 12-24.

All that really convinced me of was that the Nikon 12-24 is the one I want,
even at the much stiffer price. "We only pass this way once," as a fellow
once said. Still Rockwell's article was interesting and informative, and
worth my time reading it.



only that he prefers it as cheap midrange zoom which, he says, is a type
he
rarely uses anyway.

<rant time>

That's part of the problem - he's basically telling buyers to get the
18-55 over the much better 18-70 lense for reasons that are not relevant
to most people looking for performance.

Whether he uses that range is irrelevant, but it's one of the underlying
reasons for his conclusions.

That's just wrong.

He gives his reasons for preferring it, which are sort
of interesting. One is that the zoom increments are spaced evenly, while
on
the 18-70 they are bunched together at the short end. He's right about
that,
and I can see the benefit of a more proportional zoom control, though that
would not be a terribly important difference to me.

The only logical reason to get the 18-55 is the cost savings. All of his
other reasons are frivolous and I can't imagine anyone but a first time
buyer thinking otherwise.

Well, I think he makes some interesting points, but yes, obviously the 18-55
is just what it's intended to be, an inexpensive lens for a buyer new to
dSLRs.



The sharpness, contrast, colour, zoom range, handling, focus speed,
non-rotating front element, and full-time manual are all better options
with the 18-70 lense.

But he says it has an odd zoom ring and weighs a few ounces more, so
don't buy it.

That's just wrong again.

And a complete switch from his (probably equally strong) opinion of just a
couple of years ago, when it was his "favorite midrange zoom."



<Shrug> See if you can spot a faint side to side smear in the crops.

I really can't, in any of the shots taken with that lens. There is some
obvious chromatic aberration in the corners, which you might be taking for
smear or blur. There's nothing in the center crops, and obviously if there
were any blur from side to side movement it would have to exist in the
center as well as the corners.

Take another look at the crops in the background away from the CA. I too
noticed that the 17-35 images have motion blur.

But motion blur would have to be all over the entire frame, in the central
100% crops just as much as the corner ones. I don't see any motion blur.



And while I haven't used the 17-35 myself, everything I've read on the
internet and samples I've seen indicate the opposite of what Rockwell
says. Which doesn't surprise me.

That depends. Click-throughs don't carry any negative meanings for me. All
of the camera reviewers' sites that I go to (Steve's Digicams, DP Review,
etc.) use them, in most cases plenty of them. That's fine with me. A lot
of
work must go into managing those sites, and I don't begrudge them making a
buck.

I don't either, it's expected.

But I _do_ expect honest, fair, and objective reviews.

I think his review of those four ultrawide zooms is honest and fair.
Objective? Probably not, since he's such an opinionated fellow; but I
suspect this is an area where anyone's personal preferences make objectivity
difficult anyway. For example, he strongly advises anyone who buys one of
the non-Nikon lenses to buy a genuine Nikon rear cap and never use the one
that came with the lens. It's hard for me to imagine anyone actually doing
that, though I certainly agree (owning lenses myself from all four of those
manufacturers) that some rear caps are better than others, and pretty much
in the way he describes. I just don't agree with the importance he attaches
to rear lens caps. But this is one of those areas where you can take his
advice or ignore it according to your own preferences. So that sort of
amuses but doesn't annoy me.



Rita mentioned the Nikon 105 VR "review" from Rockwell. If you have a
look, you'll find he just briefly picked up the lense at PMA 2006 and
immediately didn't like it and writes it off without any follow up.

The results of his imaginary test review is: "Not recommended".
Why?
Because he claims autofocus is unreliable (hardly) and he already has a
105 AF lense and doesn't need another.

So basically he's telling everyone not to buy it because it's a bad
lense, which is false. And since he already has the older model, nobody
else should get it either.

But let's not lose focus of the test - he didn't seriously review it at
all. He just picked it up at a show and played for a few minutes, and
made his own wild conclusions.

That's just wrong on every level.

I certainly don't disagree with you there. I've read I think only a couple
of Rockwell's articles before this particular thread, and had not seen that
sort of thing.

Neil


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New to DSLR - Lens advice?
    ... > zoom to add to the kit to get action shots. ... > lens. ... addition the 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 lense. ... tripod its very good for the money. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: which of these two lense would you get sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or Canon 75-300m
    ... Now my question is aimed at the the longer zoom lense. ... The base Sigma and Canon version are pretty similar. ... The Canon IS lens is even better. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Canon 18-55mm kit lense - jerky joom problem
    ... maybe I should forgo the longer zoom at this stage, ... and a better short range zoom. ... Then get a longer lense after I've ... The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is an ok lens, but you might find it's not wide enough ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: [OT] Cameras again [was: iView Media Pro]
    ... >>> lens, ... >> knackered lens) perform better optically than a zoom. ... >> zooms do perform as well as primes, Canon L series for eg, and would ... >> Just recalling another review about something else and thinking about ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Nikon D50
    ... I just bought the Sigma zoom - with the macro option included - great lens ... The Nikon has garnered a good review for low distortion at ...
    (alt.photography)
Loading