Tue Apr 1 09:57:53 CEST 2008
Joost Schuttelaar wrote:
>>> Nope. Too much compromise in image quality IMHO, although I can't
> The 18-200 Nikon VR is *very* nice :) What don't you like about it
> Martin? I guess it is a bit on the slow side.
Have a look at DPreview's test:
Ok, that's theory, so what does it mean in practice:
- Distortion on the wide angle side: This is very annoying when taking
architectural shots. My 12-24mm has almost none - and it's even wider.
- Sharpness - not bad, but not very good either.
Such a superzoom is a compromise. You get a lot of coverage for a
reasonable amount of money. But you pay the price when it comes to image
quality. I've seen enough shots from a Sigma 18-200 that left me
unsatisfied (my father uses one on a Minolta 7D). The Sigma seems to be
in a similar league as the Nikon in terms of optics.
I just think it's a bad idea to invest into a DSLR, but then compromise
on the lens. If budget is an issue, I'd rather get a cheaper body but
spend the money on the optics. There are enough reasonably priced lenses
around that provide a lot higher quality than these superzooms.
If you invest into a more up-market body, I think there's simply no
justification to buy a mediocre lens, especially considering that you'll
probably keep the lenses over several generation of bodies anyway,
whereas a digital body becomes "obsolete" much quicker.
More information about the music-bar