Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:39 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:07 am 
Thanks very much for sharing.....you're very kind person.

cheers


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:16 am 
You're very welcome :)

A.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:21 am 
Ant1 wrote:
The Conclusion


BTW, when I wrote "The Conclusion" I meant you should check out the conclusion part of respective Photozone lens reviews. It was not meant as "my final conclusion", which would then imply you should get an "L" lens above all others. I thought I'd better clarify this...

A.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:31 am 
Yes, I do understand that...thanks!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:04 pm 
Hi,

Thanks for all of these posts. They have been really informative. I am facing the same decision about which camera to buy. I keep flip flopping between the 40d w/ 18-40 l f4 and 70-200 l f4 and the nikon d300 w/ 18-200 vr. I was once advised to invest more in the lenses than in the body of a camera as the bodies become obsolete quickly. I am leaning towards the nikon simply because of the versatility of the lens but I am worried that I am sacrificing image quality. Can anyone comment on the noticeable differences between these two lens combinations? Any help would make me sleep better at night :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:07 pm 
My vote goes to the D300 with 18-200mm VR. More versatile better features etc.

But the D300 is 40-50% more expensive so if you don't need the features...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:20 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9822
Location: UK
nomader11 wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for all of these posts. They have been really informative. I am facing the same decision about which camera to buy. I keep flip flopping between the 40d w/ 18-40 l f4 and 70-200 l f4 and the nikon d300 w/ 18-200 vr. I was once advised to invest more in the lenses than in the body of a camera as the bodies become obsolete quickly. I am leaning towards the nikon simply because of the versatility of the lens but I am worried that I am sacrificing image quality. Can anyone comment on the noticeable differences between these two lens combinations? Any help would make me sleep better at night :)

I think a typo has crept in. Are you referring to the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM? I'm a fan of the EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM but I think you may miss the range from 40mm to 70mm with that two lens combination. The Nikonians will jump in and correct me if I'm wrong here but while the 18-200 lens is tremendously versatile it cannot rival the image quality of either of the EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses and it suffers from vignetting issues compared to the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. I'm using the various PhotoZone reviews here which is a bit naughty as there are limits to how comparable those various reviews are. The Canon "L" glass should win out in terms of weather sealing.

On the other hand, the D300 is arguably a better camera than the 40D (see Gordon's D300 review verdict page) but unless the D300 has a feature you need which is missing from the 40D I would suggest the most important thing you can do is handle both cameras. If the D300 feels better then go for it with the 18-200 lens. If the 40D feels better then you might want to rethink how you spend your lens budget for the Canon. You can see from my signature the choices I made but then I don't often feel the need to use a shorter focal length than 24mm.

Good luck with your decision.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:19 am 
Hi nomader1,

It seems like your dilemma is about lenses. About versatility of the Nikon 18-200 vs. image quality of Canon "L" lenses. I had the 40D with the 24-105mm "L" lens, and now the Nikon with the 18-200mm. Maybe when looking a charts there is a difference in image quality. But with the 18-200mm, I haven't come across a real life situation where I thought "gee... look at that 18-200m distortion and lack of sharpness" or whatever else that might compromise image quality, and where I thought that I would have been better off with the Canon lens. And I'm sure the opposite would hold true as well (if I had now the Canon and earlier on the Nikon).

Honestly, what I remember from the Canon lens is how beautifully-made and smooth it was to operate, and the fact that the (24-105) had image-stabilisation, which I really liked. As far as image quality goes, I looked at different test pictures taken with both the Canon and the Nikon, and I couldn't tell the difference between the Canon and Nikon lenses. No charts here, no pixel-peeping, just looking at the picture to see whether it was sharp and gave me that 3-D, better-than-life image that I like. Both the Canon and the Nikon gave me that.

The big thing about the 18-200mm is its versatility and vibration-reduction feature, whilst producing image quality that I like. Full stop. The only drawback (again, in real-life, not looking at charts) this lens has in my opinion is barrel-creep when you hold the lens pointed down ( and I guess pointed up) while it is zoomed. The barrel will move due to its own weight. Not a biggie for me, because in the rare cases when I had it like that while taking a picture, I just held it. But I think that Nikon could have done better in this case. The build quality is, of course, not on par with the Canon "L" lenses or the Nikon pro lenses, for that matter, but for the price you cannot expect it to be. It's not cheap, but it's not in the "upper" category of prices either. The Nikon 18-200 is not as well built as the Canon "L" lenses, but then if you take a gold-ringed Nikon lens, I'm sure it'd feel just as nice.

Also, if Nikon only had one lens to sell - the 18-200mm - and Canon had only to sell the two lenses you mentioned, then maybe I would think twice which to get. That's why I like the 18-200mm. I will probably buy more lenses in the future, but I will always keep the 18-200mm because it's a keeper, a very good all-rounder. It's a good foundation upon which to build. I'm not 100% sure at the moment which way interests me the most, landscape, macro, astro, photo journalism-style?...Until then, the 18-200mm suits me perfectly. Then, I will get the mother-of-all specialist lens. What I'm trying to say here, is that whatever lens you buy, it's not like it's the end of the road. Image quality in real life situations will not be an issue, whatever lens you get. So get the lens(es) that suit you now.

A.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:31 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7941
Location: Germany
Addendum: Nikon has very much improved on the zoom-creep issue. I personally had one of the new copies in my hands and it feels much better now. Going to send mine to service as they promised to bring my copy up to the same standard.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:08 pm 
Thomas wrote:
Addendum: Nikon has very much improved on the zoom-creep issue. I personally had one of the new copies in my hands and it feels much better now. Going to send mine to service as they promised to bring my copy up to the same standard.


Really? That sounds interesting; I might enquire about that with Nikon Australia. Did you have the feeling it was more a policy from Nikon, or more of a personal favor, in other words, that it depends on who you're talking to?

Does your 18-200 creep a lot? I really don't have any yardstick by which to measure what is acceptable - if it should be acceptable at all - and what is not and needs fixing... If I have my zoom at its shortest focal range (18mm) then it's pretty good and doesn't creep. But if I have it mid-way (say, at 70mm) and I point it up or down, then it will creep.

Also, did the Nikon person tell you what they might do to it? Is it a matter of tightening something, or what?

God, what I wouldn't give for a "Pro" gold-ring version of the 18-200mm...I'd buy that tomorrow.

A.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:50 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7941
Location: Germany
Ant, the assertion came from a Nikon guy at the Nikon Solution Expo in cologne. So I think that's pretty much official. What they do with the older zooms, I don't know.
As to my lens: If I have it at 18mm and hanging around my neck and walking it zooms out in less than 2 minutes.
Putting the lens at 24mm and holding it down immediately results in "creep" (more like a "woosh").

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UNFAIR
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:00 am 
I have a couple of issues with several replies on this post.

I need to say that I see photography as an art form that could lead to a profitable career, but first the art (that's what I think)

The first issue goes with the comparison part between the 40D and the D300. While the 40D has many advantages, I feel that it is still a very easy camera to work with. The D300 is newer and takes a step beyond and for me it becomes a computer taking your photos, with you on the other side just thinking on just about nothing (I'm taking this to an extreme to make my point)

My point with this is that while more advanced is a camera, takes the spirit off the craft.

Believe me, I loved my Canon AE-1 with its 50mm FD lens. It made me think.

Second, I don't think Nikon beats Canon in quality, they just don't have matching models to really compare, we just take (for example) the 40D and compare it to a newer D300. I bet that you will compare the D3 against the future 6D or whatever the name will be.

That said, I think that with a decent body and some great lenses you can do the job. No matter if it is a Nikon or a Canon.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:57 am 
If I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere that the IQ of Rebel Xti is just as good as the 40D?!?

Here it is....

Canon 40D
The 40D formats my 4GB SanDisk Extreme IV cards immediately, compared to my 5D ..... In a lab, I'll bet you that the image quality of the Rebel XTi is about ...
www.kenrockwell.com/canon/40d.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group