Nikon lens not what it purports to be
View Single Post
18-07-12, 08:15 AM
N-Photo Tech Ed
Join Date: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by
The EXIF data tells me, and always has told me that the lens's extremes were 18mm and 70mm. On that basis alone I have never had any reason to doubt them as I have never directly compared this lens to similar optics. I feel pretty sure that very few owners and users have either - and that might well include lens testers from publications as well.
As Stephen Batey rightly points out a 1mm difference is hardly worth anyone's concern so 17mm or 18mm probably would not get noticed. However 50mm against 70mm is somewhat more extreme. Either all 18-70 Nikkors are in fact 17-50mm and everybody's been duped, or I have a rogue.
Without input from a 18-70mm lens owner, I'll never know.
I have an 18-70mm, an 18-55 and a 55-200 but I've not yet checked them against each other. We are thinking about whether focal length measurement should be incorporated into in our lens tests but we'd want to be sure there was enough variation amongst lenses as a whole to make this a standard fixture.
As greenwing has pointed out, the tests would need to allow for variations in magnification with focus distance.
Please don't be discouraged by any lack of response in the forums. Bear in mind that forums these days face a lot of competition from social media such as Facebook, Flicker and countless other photo related sites (and other forums). The problem isn't that people don't have anything to say, but there are just so many places to say it!
For the record, I've never had a terribly high opinion of the 18-70mm. The extra zoom range is good (even if that's a moot point in this thread!) but there's no VR and my example isn't brilliant optically - I think the later 18-55mm VR is a better budget all-rounder, but I like the 16-85mm too.
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to Rod Lawton
Find all posts by Rod Lawton