Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon vs Tamron lenses
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Oct 18, 2017 21:40:40   #
shuck Loc: Shucktown, Mississippi
 
I only have the kit 55-200 and a nikkor 80-200 for my D80. I was seriously considering the Nikkor 18-140 to replace my kit lens, for the wider angle. I'm reading here everything from, the 18-140 is a great optic, to the 18-140 is a pitiful lens. My my. Lens shopping is hard.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 22:59:26   #
ltcarizona
 
papa wrote:
P.S. And the lenses for my Canon 5D Mark III and 7D are Tokina 16-28, Tammies 24-70, 70-200, and 150-600. Sold my inferior Canon glass.


You are dead wrong about Canon Lenses. They L Series lens will beat anything Tokina or Tamron can put out, but you have to be willing to put up the big money, especially when you can buy expensive cameras.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 23:28:02   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
FWIW, unless you have access to a "pro" retail shop, i.e. a shop that caters to professionals, you will not encounter many sales people who know much about the comparative IQ of lenses. Those in the "pro" retail stores deal with repeat professional photographers and cannot afford to push the products with the higher margins; those in the "Walmarts" generally are "sales only". What they recommend means nothing. The wise shopper knows the "penny wise, pound foolish" application to retail.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2017 23:29:18   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
shuck wrote:
I only have the kit 55-200 and a nikkor 80-200 for my D80. I was seriously considering the Nikkor 18-140 to replace my kit lens, for the wider angle. I'm reading here everything from, the 18-140 is a great optic, to the 18-140 is a pitiful lens. My my. Lens shopping is hard.


I’m sure that quality varies from copy to copy in lower priced/quality lenses in Nikon as well more so than pro gear, so that maybe one of the reasons. The other reason could be the photographer’s standard. Not everyone has tried the best, so there is no way for those to compare these mega zooms. In general, the top of the line zooms are 3 to 4 X. Not 15-22X. Price is also a good indicator.

The only “long zoom” that I’m aware of that is the exception is the Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro lens that is actually sharper than the 12-40 f2.8 which is an amazingly sharp lens already.

You could rent a copy to see for yourself, or if there is a real camera store near you, will give a 14 day return period.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 02:42:41   #
PhotoByDom Loc: Honolulu, Hawaii
 
I don't own a Nikon but I think the Tamron 18-400mm is a good lens for the price. I only own native Canon glass but I'm considering this Tamron lens based on what I've read and seen on YouTube so far. Weight seems to be an issue for your for travel/hiking. The 18-400mm weighs 1.56 lbs, a few ounces and a couple hundreds more than the 16-300mm. Good luck with your search and happy shooting.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 04:09:49   #
whitewolfowner
 
[quote=robertjerl]
bkyser wrote:
Please read up on crop sensors vs. Full frame. When people tell you that a 200mm lens is a 300mm equivalent on a crop sensor camera, they are misleading you.

A lot of techinical people and factory people say exactly that. 200 mm on FF = 200 mm AOV, 200 mm on APS-C = 300 mm (Nikon) and 320 mm AOV (Canon)

It's literally a crop out of the center of the photo. (duh - it is called a "crop sensor") You're still getting the same magnification, so you aren't zooming in an extra 50%. It's just that your field of view is different.

My 6 D has a FF 20.2 MP sensor (35.8x23.9 mm) while my 7DII has an APS-C 20.2 MP sensor (22.4x15.0). Yes I can crop the 6D image to the same dimensions, but it will not have the same resolution ( about 12.6 MP) the 7DII image has all of its 20.2 MP in the same area. So the 7DII using the same lens does give me the AOV of the 6D using a longer lens. There are other factors such as light sensitivity due to pixel size but with an image taken in good light at the same distance the 7DII with say a 400 mm lens the image covers the same area (AOV) as the 6D using a 640 mm lens. You can describe it anyway with any terms you want but to most people it is the image that counts.

If you are shooting something that requires a lot of magnification, then get the proper lens, and forget about "equivalent" It just doesn't work that way.

then a lot of people including many of the world's best photographers must be wrong and they are not really getting those results
Please read up on crop sensors vs. Full frame. Wh... (show quote)




You obviously do not not understand what you are talking about, or are having trouble saying it. A 200mm lens on a Nikon crop sensor acts like a 300mm lens. This statement is true. What I think you are trying to say is that the perspective is still the same as a 200mm lens, and that is true. That's why we say "it acts like", because, as you said, it is no different than taking a photo and cutting out the center part of it. That is exactly what a crop sensor does; it takes in a smaller field of view or the center of the area that a full frame sensor takes in. The concept here is no different than when you went from your 35mm lenses to your 2 1/4 lenses. On a 2 1/4 square negative, the normal lens was 80mm. Why? Because the film area is larger than 35mm film. Same thing as a 6 X 7 negatives normal lens was 105mm.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 18:44:51   #
pmackd Loc: Alameda CA
 
shuck wrote:
I only have the kit 55-200 and a nikkor 80-200 for my D80. I was seriously considering the Nikkor 18-140 to replace my kit lens, for the wider angle. I'm reading here everything from, the 18-140 is a great optic, to the 18-140 is a pitiful lens. My my. Lens shopping is hard.


I use a lot of Nikon lenses including the 18-140, some much more expensive ones adorned by gold rings. And have read countless reviews. The guy who rated the 18-140 "pitiful" is just flat out wrong. Over much of its range it is surprisingly sharp and free of distortion for a relatively inexpensive lens. I was happy with mine for years and still would not hesitate to use it. I have an amazingly sharp 20 x 60 print of the Golden Gate bridge I shot with it at 30mm. Where it falls down badly is above 120mm, maybe even above 100mm. Much less sharp at 140mm and noticeable loss of contrast. The other wide range zooms will generally have similar problems at the long end and might not thrill you in the lower focal length range where you shoot most of your photos.

If you want a real "upgrade" from the 18-140, you'd need to buy the (overpriced in my opinion, but highly rated) Nikon 16-80mm. Yes the superzooms will get you from wide to 300 or 400mm but you might or might not be happy with what they do at the long end. Someone else already said this, but if you really want excellence on a Nikon body at the long end get the 300mm f4 VR PF E. Expensive at $2000. but not, in my opinion, overpriced. Only 26 ounces. If you can't afford it yet, get the very sharp AF-P DX 70-300 mm...gray market for under $200., weight only one pound, and see if changing lenses is all that much of an issue when you "walk around" rather than make dedicated phototrips.

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2017 00:56:24   #
Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA
 
gary robertson wrote:
I have a 7100 and I just went to the Tamron 18/400 and am very happy with the combo. I have a bunch of Nikon lenses on the shelf now.


I can echo that response. I have the same lens on a D7500 and it's nice know that wherever I go, I'll have that kind of reach... and it takes great pics as well...


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Oct 20, 2017 08:28:25   #
Indylp
 
simply put
The field of image equals the end result
so with a crop sensor and a 200 mm lens, you are getting 300 mm of end results without loss of light I might add..

Reply
Oct 26, 2017 09:50:54   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
billnikon wrote:
Your post I am sure is well intended but the OP is a beginner and not quite ready for a graduate level dissertation on cropped sensors. Nice but overkill comes to mind. And yes, for the OP, a 200 mm becomes a 300 mm lens on a cropped sensor, it makes better sense to the OP.


Not true. If you take a photo of a bottle at 100' with a full frame camera, and with a crop frame, the bottle will be the same size, there is no magnification or reach.

It is NOT "equivalent to" 1.5 x (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon)

Spin it how you like it. I've been shooting professionally for 33 years, and even longer as a hobby and a passion. I'm only trying to help when someone wants more "reach" that's not being technical, it's just using the facts.

If you want 300mm, then get 300mm, or 150mm with a 2x teleconverter. You are NOT seeing things closer up, or magnified.

by the crop factor. Crop factor is just field of view, period

Reply
Oct 26, 2017 09:52:02   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
whitewolfowner wrote:
No they are not misleading you; that is exactly what a lens does on a crop sensor. People should know what they are talking about before they put their foot in their mouth in a world wide format.


Exactly, do some research, and get back with me about how hard it was to remove your foot.

Reply
 
 
Oct 26, 2017 09:53:51   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
whitewolfowner wrote:
You obviously do not not understand what you are talking about, or are having trouble saying it. A 200mm lens on a Nikon crop sensor acts like a 300mm lens. This statement is true. What I think you are trying to say is that the perspective is still the same as a 200mm lens, and that is true. That's why we say "it acts like", because, as you said, it is no different than taking a photo and cutting out the center part of it. That is exactly what a crop sensor does; it takes in a smaller field of view or the center of the area that a full frame sensor takes in. The concept here is no different than when you went from your 35mm lenses to your 2 1/4 lenses. On a 2 1/4 square negative, the normal lens was 80mm. Why? Because the film area is larger than 35mm film. Same thing as a 6 X 7 negatives normal lens was 105mm.
You obviously do not not understand what you are t... (show quote)


I'm not confused, you are repeating what I said. It's the same reach, just a smaller crop. You are not magnifying the subject to a 300mm focal distance with a 200mm lens.

Reply
Oct 26, 2017 10:02:30   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm

Reply
Oct 28, 2017 03:25:07   #
papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA
 
I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.
ltcarizona wrote:
You are dead wrong about Canon Lenses. They L Series lens will beat anything Tokina or Tamron can put out, but you have to be willing to put up the big money, especially when you can buy expensive cameras.

Reply
Oct 28, 2017 03:40:10   #
papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA
 
Well Bob, it's good to hear the voice of experience when the day is done and that you too woke to reality. Canon and Nikon have fallen far behind on lens quality, save for a very few very expensive lenses that have unnoticeable differences in IQ. The OP just needs time for studying the science in all the reviews available online.
It's very straightforward instead of just the hurrah for this or that because I own it and paid too much for it so it must be the best if it's the most expensive idiots or the now I only need one lens to do it all from 16mm-600mm. LOL
Robert Bailey wrote:
I have 3 Nikon DSLR bodies including a D7100.
I gradually came to realize that the "kit" 18 to 140 mm was horrible.
I replaced it with two lenses that are superb-
a Sigma 18-35 mm f 1.8 (new) and
a Sigma 50-150 mm f 2.8 (used).

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.