Could somebody please explain me why can´t I achieve same results with cheaper lens? First the question: this is a 3.5 maximum aperture lens, why can´t I achieve the same results with my 18 - 105 kit lens with the same maximum aperture?I have read some stuff, and I own a D90 with a the 18 105 kit lens. I understand is a cheap lens. I also own a 50mm 1.8 and can really see the difference, but I would say it is only due to the maximum aperture of the 50mm, which is much wider than the kit lens. I know of course this lens offered here (the 10-24 mm) is much better at 18mm than the kit lens I have at the same distance. But why again if the aperture is the same in both lenses? what else is there to compare?ThanxMiguel Could somebody please explain me why can´t I achieve same results with cheaper lens? First the question: this is a 3.5 maximum aperture lens, why can´t I achieve the same results with... » Read More Could somebody please explain me why can´t I achieve same results with cheaper lens? First the question: this is a 3.5 maximum aperture lens, why can´t I achieve the same results with my 18 - 105 kit lens with the same maximum aperture?I have read some stuff, and I own a D90 with a the 18 105 kit lens. I understand is a cheap lens. I also own a 50mm 1.8 and can really see the difference, but I would say it is only due to the maximum aperture of the 50mm, which is much wider than the kit lens. I know of course this lens offered here (the 10-24 mm) is much better at 18mm than the kit lens I have at the same distance. But why again if the aperture is the same in both lenses? what else is there to compare?ThanxMiguel « Show Less
942878
In my experience, you'll get very much the same pic with the 10-24 between 18-24mm as you would with the 18-105. That's one reason I sold it. The 10-24 should be shot at 10mm, which is why you're buying it in the first place and why it costs so much (Just my opinion of course). http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HCPRMG89GYZO/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0026FCKC8&nodeID;=502394&tag;=&linkCode;=
942879
non professional here!i am so confused by some of the pro's here ! so someone please tell me,will it work on my nikon D 60, Then, for a amature-beginner- training pants guy, how will this do for real estate, mountains, gardens, charging grizzly, kidds christmas with sants, high school photos of the kids,, antique autos, the " Hoss" an buggy, does anyone get my ideas, there is two guys on the reviewsthat sound incredibaly smart, good show, i so want to get this lens, BUT ? J.R. Massachusetts
364835
Basically just more distance. In my opinion, i never ever use the kit lens, so get the cheaper one and get a couple primes with much much better quality. Thats just my opinion. Honestly, just watch some reviews and based off what kind of photography you're doing its your call!
354389
The main reason to get the 17 Mm lens over the kit lens is the 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight or blurred background it is also more compact which is great for indoors when I bought my OMD I chose not to purchase the kit lens instead I bought the 17 mm 2.8 and the 14 to 150 zero lens. I have been very happy with this combination for most situations.
1937699
i have d5000 and everytime i switch to any f-number i got this " lock lens aperture ring at minimum aperture (largest f/-number) " so i always use 22 and then i lock it, but why?! please help me what setting i need for manual or to use 1.8 instead 22. ty for any answer
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.
306198
All of these are on the low-end of lenses and so I don't know if you'll see an appreciable difference in image quality, especially on a budget (D)SLR. The most direct comparison that can be made is to the kit lens. Assuming you've already decided that a zoom lens is necessary, both will have similar image quality, but the advantage of this model is that the widest aperture does not change with zoom - it will stay at f/2.8 over the entire length. Moreover, this has a wider maximum aperture than the kit, enabling for shallower depth of field and more light reaching the sensor. The question becomes, are these aspects necessary/important to you? If image quality is more important than the ability to zoom, then, in general, prime lenses tend to produce sharper images than budget zoom lenses.
464450
The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use prime lenses like this 35mm equivalent lens on their cameras for street shots. The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use... » Read More The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use prime lenses like this 35mm equivalent lens on their cameras for street shots. « Show Less
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
597331
Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105? Despite the relative ratio differences it seems as though the 24-105 is so much more of lens for not much more money. Any thoughts?
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
19332
Thirding the question. Is there any new element and is the optical quality the same? How would a better lens be cheaper than the previous version?
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
557614
Hi, It didn't make such a big difference. I thought it would let in more light and also help with taking closer shots, but it did marginally. I never ever use my other 14-42mm lens though, because this one is so small and does the job of the other one anyway. So I would get it if you also want to have a smaller lens that you will keep on for most of the time.
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
957243
I sent mine back to the shipper, because the ring that holds the lens came apart, and I could not fix it. I think it's cheaply made. The one negative aspect of it however, is that you have to pay the shipping. I then purchased the shorter 500/1000 lens they sell, but that has only one aperture size: f/8. For me the shorter lens is better, and I'm willing to put up with the one size aperture... Most times I can compensate by shooting at a different shutter speed and/or using a higher ISO.