Best lens

[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.

[greenwing]

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

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by greenwing

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.

I agree. The only value in knowing the focal length is to get a feel for the degree of magnification that the lens will provide. In the days or yore when we used to cram stuff called, "Film" into out 35mm cameras the rule was (more or less) 50mm is 'standard', i.e. 1:1 and anything bigger than that was heading towards the telephoto (magnified) end of the spectrum and any smaller number indicated wide-angle. Thus, 100mm was roughly 2:1
This remains true in FX formats, but when we think in terms of DX we have to say that 35mm is about standard and a 70mm will be equivalent to the 35mm (or FX) 100mm
If you want to get techie about it, the 'standard' focal length is established by measuring the diagonal of the equivalent square image. In other words; the 35mm, FX format is 24mm x 36mm, so the square format would be 36mm x 36mm and the diagonal of that works out to 50.9mm. Therefore 50mm is the standard or normal focal length. The DX format is 18mm x 24mm which gives us 33.9mm on the diagonal.
Not so important these days, but 40 years ago we had little 16mm cameras, Olympus had a ½ frame, 35mm was common, as was 60mm x 60mm. 50mm x 70mm was creeping in and 4" x 5" was still in use. Losing favour, but still around was Quarter Plate, Half Plate, Full Plate (6½" x 8½") and 8" x 10". It was important to know your way round focal lengths.

[Cathus]

so what is the best lens Canoman, and why?

[canoman]

You luckin for a fight der lad. Seriously tho when I bought my Nikon 3100 I purchased the Nikon 55-300.. the mag says "You can`t go wrong at the price, great value". Yet a few months back another mag said "only average "Focus falls away at a certain focal length" From years of reading previews on lens I always make my own judgement.

[Cathus]

I don't have any interest in Nikon gear as such, I was only really interested because you appear to disagree with the mag but don't say why.

Of course, it makes sense to draw conclusions about which lens to buy from several different sources and not just one or two magazine reviews.

[donoreo]

I have seen more than once a magazine refer to a previous test that included the same model and say how much better it performed on the current one. This shows that there is inconsistencies in production. So one magazine may get a good one and another a not as good one. This would lead to different reviews.

I would never expect this with high end lenses, but I can certainly see it happening with lower end ones.

[canoman]

Unlike years ago when human calculation was used to make the glass, nowadays it is all computerised. So one is an exact copy of the previous one. I think it was Canon who made the proud boast that if you took one down from the shelf it would be an exact copy of another. This is why I do not understand the write up one sees of complaints of front or back focussing errors. I made up a simple checker and checked all of my lens. I did not find one faulty lens. The only fault one sees is build quality, such as stiff zooming etc.

[Derek300Savage]

I remember reading with great interest in another magazine the review of the nikon vr2 lens at the time i was going to buy one I had a sigma 18-200 on my D80 which was stolen at a charity event along with the camera and other bits and bobs at the time in that magazine there were 5 lenses on review all from the top brands and the Nikon was the runaway success . hence it was top of my list and this is the first lens in the gadget bag when im out shooting I find it really versatile and easy to get good results from although I try to keep away from using at the extreme ends of the focal lengths. the build quality is also very good and after 2yrs of use ive not encountered any issues .

[canoman]

Looking at mag 4 (free peep in the newsagents) I see its PLAYED 4, WON 4, DREW 0 LOST 0 . Even the Manchester teams can`t match that.