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
General Lenses
Does wider zoom range mean lower image quality?
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="Snowcat" data-source="post: 644318" data-attributes="member: 44121"><p>I will just explain about 10-20.</p><p></p><p>It is small, it is silent, it is super fast, all true.</p><p></p><p>BUT:</p><p>-it the cornsers NEVER get sharpness. Never, not at f8, not at f11, corners are always unsharp</p><p>-The lens has very poor microcontrast. So green leaves on relatively distant trees turn into half-digested mass, very unpleasant</p><p></p><p>If you take this lens for indoor shooting you probably will never even notice that! If you shoot cities without rich vegetation, again, you can be happy. But if you shoot nature - this lens is awful. The worst UWA lens I've seen, including ill-famous old Tamron 10-24 which I also had. And I will say that again, I brought this lens to Nikon, I just could not believe it SHOULD be this way. They told me "the lens is OK, everything as it should be - no back focus, no front focus, sharpness within designed parameters". So no, it was not a defective copy.</p><p></p><p>Actually, the best UWA lens I used was Tokina 11-16/2.8. Yep, THE smallest zoom range <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Yet Nikon 10-20 which also has a small zoom range is worse then Nikon 10-24, which has larger range... Well, I guess you see my point <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snowcat, post: 644318, member: 44121"] I will just explain about 10-20. It is small, it is silent, it is super fast, all true. BUT: -it the cornsers NEVER get sharpness. Never, not at f8, not at f11, corners are always unsharp -The lens has very poor microcontrast. So green leaves on relatively distant trees turn into half-digested mass, very unpleasant If you take this lens for indoor shooting you probably will never even notice that! If you shoot cities without rich vegetation, again, you can be happy. But if you shoot nature - this lens is awful. The worst UWA lens I've seen, including ill-famous old Tamron 10-24 which I also had. And I will say that again, I brought this lens to Nikon, I just could not believe it SHOULD be this way. They told me "the lens is OK, everything as it should be - no back focus, no front focus, sharpness within designed parameters". So no, it was not a defective copy. Actually, the best UWA lens I used was Tokina 11-16/2.8. Yep, THE smallest zoom range ;) Yet Nikon 10-20 which also has a small zoom range is worse then Nikon 10-24, which has larger range... Well, I guess you see my point :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Does wider zoom range mean lower image quality?
Top
