DSLR

[Martin Naef]

Hi Joost

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:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

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.

Bye
Martin
-- 
http://www.navisto.ch
http://www.myspace.com/navisto