If you use digital only, get 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR.zola70 said:To me it's a very good lens and gives a sharp image :thumbsup: . The only thing is not wide & tele enough that's why I sold it off few weeks ago and upgrade to 18-200VR :bsmilie: . The VR for this 24-120 works great and good for travelling . I should say it's a very good walkabout lens.
If you really have 1K to spend go for 18-200 VR if not 24-120 VR:embrass: .
Sharp lens but not as constrasty as compared to primes and high end zooms. Barrel can be seen on the wide end, so careful with placing subjects on corners and edges.since63 said:
Then buy AF-S 17-35, AF-S 28-70 and AF-S 80-200 :thumbsup:since63 said:Hi Guys,
Many Thanks for the quick replys, the very informative comments and the suggested alternatives.
Presently have an old F90X and I'm looking for a DSLR. So a lense that's suitable for both the DSLR and SLR is preferrable, although I must agreed that the 18-200 VR is very tempting.
lsisaxon said:If you use digital only, get 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR.
If you use film also, get 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one).
F-stop difference is good enough to justify a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. That's almost 1 stop.since63 said:Hello lsisaxon,
What's the difference between 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one) and the AF-S one (besides the f-stop difference)?
Also do you know the price the 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one)?
Thanks again for you suggestion.
actually, quite a few reviewers (including noted Nikonian Thom Hogon) prefer the newer AFS 24-85mm f3.5/4.5 G lens.lsisaxon said:F-stop difference is good enough to justify a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. That's almost 1 stop.
Personally, I'm using this lens and it gives great result but I can't comment on the AF-S one because I don't have it.
AF-D 24-85/2.8-4 List Price:$1280 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=78-df53a3398c
AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 ED List Price: $650 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=79-570de00bd5
See which one you prefer.
Maybe for half the price, it's really worth it?danster said:actually, quite a few reviewers (including noted Nikonian Thom Hogon) prefer the newer AFS 24-85mm f3.5/4.5 G lens.
I've used it myself and was more than happy with the sharpness and contrast. Only problem was that it was not wide enough on DSLR so I traded it for the D70 kit lens, which I'm also happy with
But as it is a G lens w/o the aperture ring, you can mount it on your F90x but will not be able to control the aperture in A or M mode. However, you can still use it in "shiftable" P mode.
Agreed to a certain extend.espn said:If want to see sharpness, should zoom in at 100% and crop the sides/center, showing a resized image doesn't work.
Agreed that the 24 is not wide enough, I do find that it is a limitation to a certain extend. If there is a 18-200 2.8 VR .. I guess its really a wish lens for a lot of pple as well. Not forgetting at the 200 tele end, is this a well balanced lens? I'm not sure, but from the experience of the 24-120, the tele end is not very balance(as in weight distribution), thats my feel of it. It may be a personal preference, I guess.shutterbug said:Like some has said, it is not wide enough. Better choice is the new 18-200 VR. Quite a performer.
And your point being? If I do print above A3 and poster size?jeff3tan said:Agreed to a certain extend.
Do u print every single shot at A3 or poster size?
Please pardon me on that, I did not resize that image, Its is displayed at a predefined size for viewing. If u want to take a look u can view it from my gallery. Orginal size is available for your viewing pleasure. Yes, agreed on USM + ++++ gives u a good processed image but these images are UN-USM.espn said:And your point being? If I do print above A3 and poster size?
You wanted to show the sharpness of the glass, then it should be cropped at certain areas to show the sharpness at 100% and not a resized image. Any resized image + PS USM will appear to be sharp.
It's the raw images prior to USM and resizing that shows how sharp the glass is. Resizing already throws away details.
What's displayed at predefined size? If you wanted to show the original images you should have linked the originals directly and not give 'predefined size' viewing sizes for showing the sharpness.jeff3tan said:Please pardon me on that, I did not resize that image, Its is displayed at a predefined size for viewing. If u want to take a look u can view it from my gallery. Orginal size is available for your viewing pleasure. Yes, agreed on USM + ++++ gives u a good processed image but these images are UN-USM.
My my, getting touchy here aren't we.jeff3tan said:If u would like to comment as they are not the right size for your expert comments , your choice.