romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

First- the 1970's series E lenses often used identical optics to the Nikor branded lenses, just mounted in a less expensive, less durable plastic body.The range from ultra wide(18) to (105;135; or 140) is much greater in coverage than the flat field of 75mm-150mm. You are comparing two different types of zoom designs
(ultra wide to tele) to (short to medium tele).Yet you expect the same performance parameters. Not going to happen. The 50mm f1.8 E lens was also highly rated,as was the 35mmE.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

It's absurd to compare a 75-150mm lens to ones with a zoom range of 5 or 8 to one, and more, without recognizing, explicitly, that making large ratio zoom lenses with high resolution and low distortion is much more difficult than making lenses with small zoom ratios. That it can be done at all is a triumph of modern technology; that it can be done with retail prices less than $500 is even more wonderful. I don't know about the other Nikon zooms mentioned, but the 18-140 is a sharp, excellent lens, just a little soft and low contrast at the long end, and requires no correction otherwise.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The lens I'm referring to is the Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L zoom lens. It is the best lens manufactured by any company, in its class. No other lens manufacturer makes a 28-300 class zoom lens that has higher quality glass, better focus motor or vibration compensation vibration reduction image stabilization or whatever they call it, and overall build quality than the Canon lens, no one. It's not a really sharp lens but it's sharp enough. It will never win an IQ contest but I'm sure pictures taken with one have won photo contests. It's fairly large and a bit heavy and a bit pricey but it is the best in class and also quite versatile. And when mounted to a body with a 50.6 mp sensor, produces really good images.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

So many use 14-24 2.8

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I'm not a Canon user so some things may escape me but Canon EF lenses will be perfectly fine on the DSLRs.

These are the Canon EF-S mount lenses and being designed for a smaller sensor throw a smaller image circle so Vignetting is the biggest problem. You will have to crop or it may be that the camera automatically switches to crop mode; I don't know about Canon but that's what Sony cameras do. You may also get additional internal reflections due to the larger image circle but this rarely causes problems.

About the only difference is that the back element on the lens may be "coated". This helps to cut down on reflections from the Sensor (Sensors are much more reflective than film). This is not an issue for most 35mm lenses but some wide angle ones exhibit the phenomenon in certain circumstances. Sometimes known as the "big red spot" because it can be red shifted.

All Marketing Hype should be ignored. Course, it's sometimes hard to separate truth from fiction.

mmeador

Absolutely, the fixed lens are superior in image quality. I use my Nikkor 35mm-1.8 and my 135mm-2.8 most of the time. I use my zooms for nature and landscapes sometimes because of convenience. My next purchase is going to be a Tokina 100mm 2.8 for a macro work.

DJO

My comparison may be absurd, but what about the 18-140? Tests and reviews I've seen all report distortion at the low end, and how can soft and low contrast at the long end in any way be considered acceptable?

Low price is no excuse.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Peekayoh! Thank you, sir! I found your information extremely helpful. Back in the day, I did most of my commercial work with view cameras, there was not fixed lens mount, per se, os issues cause by retro focus lenses or mirrors. I would just mount any lens on a flat lensboard and find out, soon enough if the coverage was sufficient and if the image quality was up to par. Nowadays, of course, things are different

Thanks again! Ed

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Barrel distortion is common on wide angle lenses, especially zooms, and is easily correctable. Nikons can do it automatically in camera with little or no loss of sharpness.

With the 18-140 (a DX crop sensor lens)I try to stay away from the long end, but it's still a very useful lens. At 50mm the sharpness is very close to that of the Nikon 50mm FX "D" 1.8 prime, according to my measurements.

A Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR is almost always on my D750 full frame. Here I see no softness or loss of contrast at the long end. Again Nikon's automatic in-camera distortion correction corrects barrel distortion on the wide end and pin cushion distortion on the long end. The wide end distortion isn't perfect. If I care about this, which I usually don't, I can easily correct it in post processing.

This lens is sharp enough for any photography I do, which includes frequently printing to 20 x 30 inches. And I am very fussy. The wide angle shots I used to get with the 18-140 and printed to this size are almost as good.

I could spend $800. for a 20mm F1.8 prime and probably will at some point but it has considerable barrel distortion too, which has to be corrected one way or the other.

le boecere

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Yes it is, no it isn't.
"little or no loss of sharpness" is a subjective assessment. I'm against this trend to do automatic corrections in camera rather than correcting in lens by design.
So, you bought yourself an 18-100mm or some such and to say it's as sharp as the dirt cheap 50/1.8D is simply not the case; look at DxOmark.
I'm honestly happy for you that you see no softness or loss of contrast but you really are kidding yourself although if "it's good enough" that's Ok too. When you correct distortions in software, you destroy detail.
A subjective assessment which is Ok for you personally but maybe not to everyone's taste.
Consider one which has less distortion like the Zeiss 21mm ZF. As I said above, software corrections destroy detail.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This is indeed a very interesting thread. After all, our lenses are the “eyes” of our cameras and we don't want to impair the performance of our cameras with bad lenses. It, however, must seem obvious to most of us that there is no such thing, especially in critical or precise work, as a universal “one size” or type of lens that “fits all” aspects of photography. It is really the old matter of selecting the right tool for the job at hand. There is always gonna be a compromise situation especially if one's work is diversified.

All engineering and manufacturing qualities being equal, in most cases according to my experience, a fixed focal length lens will outperform a zoom, but there are many variations. Perhaps in some comparisons at a certain same focal length and aperture, there would be little or no easily detectable difference is performance but when the zoom version is zoomed in or out, its performance in longer or shorter focal lengths may be somewhat inferior to fixed focal length lenses of the other focal lengths. In fine quality zooms, however, is the differences serious enough to give up the speed and convenience that the zoom offers. If you are a photojournalist covering a fast action sports event and your images will end up on a magazine cover or a full page spread- all we are talking about is perhaps an enlargement of perhaps 11X14 inches or thereabout, the quality from your favorite zoom may be ample and sufficient and, of course, your zoom will provide for extremely fast composition and capture which is essential for exciting sports coverage. If, on the other hand, you are shooting a food layout, in the studio, that is going to be reproduced on a 40X60 display transparency, a prime lens of the appropriate focal length should be your choice. This is only one example out of an infinite number of situations.

One of my professional specialties is portraiture. What can I say, not all of my clients are interested in seeing their pores in their portraits or head shots so I have a collection of specialized soft focus lenses to address some of theses cosmetic or aesthetic issues- sometimes a zoom or prime that is not exactly razor sharp will do the job nicely. Some portrait studios need to be tack sharp! Again, it depends on the job at hand.

Then there is the question of what I call exotic or specialized lenses such as extreme wide angle or telephoto lenses, super-monochromatic types, perspective control, macro and lenses made of specialized glass or plastics for UV scientific purposes, and medical lenses with built in ring-lights. Of course, theses are for special purposes and are usually not included in the average lens inventory unless there is specialized work for which they are needed on an ongoing basis. Some of theses specialized requirements can be addressed with general purpose lenses with the aid of accessories or improvisational techniques or “tricks of the trade”, that is if ultimate in sharpness quality is not mandatory.

Lots of this has to do with the budget; even full-time professionals can't afford every lens in the catalog.

Sometimes photographers become too preoccupied with finite test results and “optical bench” specifications. There are testing devices that can measure minute degrees of resolution, fall off, and other optical phenomena and certain aberrations to microscopic degrees. The question is; do we see theses things in our photographic results at the usual degrees of enlargement that we use? We can research and argue our heads off but the final decision on lens choices, purchases and usages should depend on making photographs with the lenses in questions and concluding which lenses fit your own standards, working conditions, and requirements. For this reason, I usually try to buy my lenses from local suppliers. I am a “frequent flier” with my main dealer and I can get to try out a lens at my studio for a couple of days or, at least, go down to his shop and make a number of test shots. This may cost me a few dollars more that dealing with a big New York “box store” but I never have to worry about shipping issues, damage or disappointment with a purchase which involves more phone calls, payment issues and shipping complications.

I hope this helps with the original question!

Ed

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

You are being very dogmatic in your assertions but what you fail to recognize is that everyone's requirements are different. My requirement is that any defect that I need to spend money to correct has to show up on a 20 x 30 landscape print. If I can't see it from a couple of feet away I don't care about it.

As to your assertion about DxO and the Nikon 50mm F1.8 "D" lens please go on the DxO web site and find me data from the 24-120 mm F4 that I could use to compare with it AT 50mm, where I made my comparison. Zoom lenses are designed in such a way that they give very different results at different focal lengths. If I do a careful test with a test chart and see that my 50 doesn't do any better than my 24-120 AT 50, that ends my interest in changing lenses to that prime. I don't care what DxO's overall sharpness evaluation for the zoom is, because that obviously includes its many weaknesses at wide and tele focal lengths. Yes, some one else may have done testing more careful and scientific than mine and documented that the 50mm "D" prime is a bit sharper than the 24-120 at 50, but so what. I could never see the difference where it counts for me, in a 20 x 30 print.

And as far as your contention about distortion corrections reducing sharpness you are correct on a theoretical basis, but again so what? I did a careful test with my 24-120 with in-camera auto distortion on and off and I could not see any sharpness differences, even pixel peeping past 100%. Therefore it stays on.

Now if I should somehow stumble into an an assignment with National Geographic, yes I might buy a $2000. prime.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Like I said before, if the lens does what you want, nothing else really matters. It won't do for everyone though so you can accuse me of being dogmatic but the truth is the truth.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

it's totally up to you, some can go a lifetime with prime lenses.