slrgear.com reviews nikon lens inlcuding 18-200VR

[wind30]

Hi People,

I just found the slrgear.com has some VERY detailed review on nikon lens.

Very interesting read.

They have the 17-55 f2.8, 18-70 kit lens, 18-200 VR + lots of others.

Highly detailed 3-D plots on sharpness covering the whole range of focal lengths and apertures. Quite remarkable website.

The MOST amazing thing is that it seems that the 18-70 kit lens is COMPARABLE to the 17-55 f2.8 at f4 in terms of sharpness. wow...

 

[lsisaxon]

Hi People,

I just found the slrgear.com has some VERY detailed review on nikon lens.

Very interesting read.

They have the 17-55 f2.8, 18-70 kit lens, 18-200 VR + lots of others.

Highly detailed 3-D plots on sharpness covering the whole range of focal lengths and apertures. Quite remarkable website.

The MOST amazing thing is that it seems that the 18-70 kit lens is COMPARABLE to the 17-55 f2.8 at f4 in terms of sharpness. wow...

Does that mean my 18-200VR is better than the 17-55/2.8? I don't think so.

 

[reeflobang]

read in the review that sharpness is an issue at 18-24mm... any current user of this VR have this issue?

 

[lsisaxon]

read in the review that sharpness is an issue at 18-24mm... any current user of this VR have this issue?

Corners are not as sharp than the centre but overall still sharper than the 18-70.

 

[vince123123]

The 18-200 looks very good at f11 - very flat charts

Hi People,

I just found the slrgear.com has some VERY detailed review on nikon lens.

Very interesting read.

They have the 17-55 f2.8, 18-70 kit lens, 18-200 VR + lots of others.

Highly detailed 3-D plots on sharpness covering the whole range of focal lengths and apertures. Quite remarkable website.

The MOST amazing thing is that it seems that the 18-70 kit lens is COMPARABLE to the 17-55 f2.8 at f4 in terms of sharpness. wow...

 

[wind30]

The 18-200 looks very good at f11 - very flat charts

it looks very good at f8 already for 18-100mm. Quite an interesting read. But the canon 17-85mm IS sample they had is fabulous. Sharp even wide open. The only thing lacking in this site is mulitple samples

 

[espn]

Quote from http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

sites exist that overwhelm you with MTF plots purportedly providing indisputable facts. MFT methodology has a genuine scientific foundation and there is nothing "wrong" with MFT as such. I even understand the mathematical equations. However, such statistics basically are as helpful as knowing the mass of a lens - on its own, MFT testing cannot predict the pictorial outcome of any lens. Thus, MFT tests will not show all problems from field curvature, colour fringing, flare and ghosting, the variability in performance that arises from near or distant focus, the subjective 'feel' of the images and in particular the out-of-focus rendition (given the buzz word of 'bokeh'), the way a lens handles under actual use, and so on. MFT data can just indicate there is a problem with a lens, or that a particular lens might be an excellent piece of glass. All of this information can be obtained as easy (but likely not as fast) just by shooting pictures with the lens. Averaging MFT numbers to arrive at a single value in order to rank lens quality is simply impossible and largely a waste of time.