Quote:
Originally Posted by canoman
I see, according to this independant mag, another nikon lens is first past the post. Good job this mag does not select the Olympics.  |
The superzoom test can be criticised on many levels.
The insistence on using the terms APS-C and Full-frame where DX and FX are more appropriate in the context of a Nikon magazine. APS-C implies an inferior format to 35mm or full frame, one of the failures on Kodak's route to oblivion. The DX/FX comparison is far less clear cut.
Tying themselves in tautological knots when trying to explain 'focal length equivalence' when really there's no need for it. Most DX users don't know, and don't need to know, what any particular focal length looks like on 35mm. Why insist that they know that 18mm is 27mm, other than to fill up column inches? It only really matters to owners of FX cameras, and then I don't think they'll be particularly concerned about it.
Saying that on an APS-C (make that DX, guys) camera you want a DX lens for wideangle and FX for telephoto is misleading. In the context of this test, yes, the wider lenses are DX and the 300mm lenses are FX, but it's not true as a general rule. Wide is a shorter focal length, telephoto is a longer FL, and whether the lens is DX or FX doesn't matter.
At least one glaring technical error - saying that the Nikon 18-200 MkII is better than the MkI because it has 4 stops of VR rather than 3. Both have the same VRII system. The most significant non-cosmetic change to the MkII lens is the addition of a zoom lock switch.
All that said, though, I don't think I can criticise the choice of test winner. They're jacks-of-all-trades, but I think the Nikon masters one or two of those trades.
Chris