Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
16-85 af-s dx vr
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aroy" data-source="post: 338242" data-attributes="member: 16090"><p>I have experienced that zooms in general and long zooms in particular have pretty bad IQ. The 16-85 was bought by my son, primarily for the 16mm end. It is just passable at 16mm but much inferior to the latest 18-55 at the long end.</p><p></p><p>My son had also bought the 70-300, but it is horrible at the 300mm end.</p><p></p><p>My opinion; not shared by many; is that apart from the professional zooms (which cost an arm and a leg), it is better to have primes. My range would be</p><p>. Zoom 18-55 VR-II</p><p>. 35mm F1.8</p><p>. 135mm F2</p><p>. 300mm F4</p><p></p><p>With a sharp zoom and a 24MP sensor you get better image quality after cropping than with an inexpensive zoom. Thus with 300mm in the 70-300 has less resolution than my 50mm prime. So does the 85mm of 16-85. In some of my posts I did post a comparison.</p><p></p><p>One thing to consider, is that with primes you have to move about a lot, and at times you may not fill the frame entirely. But photographers have been using primes for the last hundred years with no problems. A prime is the best value for money and at the same time the lightest option. Modern high MP sensors give you enough real estate to crop with impunity. Unless you are in business of selling fine prints of A0 (3' x 4') a 4 to 5 MP image is all that you can display on the screen (and on net it is even smaller). When you consider that a 24MP image can print a A2 size comfortably, cropping half of it out, will still give you a detailed A4 print.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aroy, post: 338242, member: 16090"] I have experienced that zooms in general and long zooms in particular have pretty bad IQ. The 16-85 was bought by my son, primarily for the 16mm end. It is just passable at 16mm but much inferior to the latest 18-55 at the long end. My son had also bought the 70-300, but it is horrible at the 300mm end. My opinion; not shared by many; is that apart from the professional zooms (which cost an arm and a leg), it is better to have primes. My range would be . Zoom 18-55 VR-II . 35mm F1.8 . 135mm F2 . 300mm F4 With a sharp zoom and a 24MP sensor you get better image quality after cropping than with an inexpensive zoom. Thus with 300mm in the 70-300 has less resolution than my 50mm prime. So does the 85mm of 16-85. In some of my posts I did post a comparison. One thing to consider, is that with primes you have to move about a lot, and at times you may not fill the frame entirely. But photographers have been using primes for the last hundred years with no problems. A prime is the best value for money and at the same time the lightest option. Modern high MP sensors give you enough real estate to crop with impunity. Unless you are in business of selling fine prints of A0 (3' x 4') a 4 to 5 MP image is all that you can display on the screen (and on net it is even smaller). When you consider that a 24MP image can print a A2 size comfortably, cropping half of it out, will still give you a detailed A4 print. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
16-85 af-s dx vr
Top
