Would I get better IQ buying a 20x compact as compared to using this lens on an Olympus EP10 I have, as the DXO ranking is not great for this lens?
927465
This is not a bad lens at all. It is certainly not the fastest or sharpest, but a very sharp and fast zoom with this range would be very expensive and bulky. I use it for bird photography with decent results. I would not get same results with any available point and shoot camera.
927466
There are some technics of using this lens, but it's capable to produce very good images.
927467
I don't think you would get better IQ with a compact camera without interchangeable lenses. The only way I know of to get better IQ then this lens at this focal length is with a DSLR.
927468
This lens will be far better than any 20x compact. By the way I did not find any ref to EP10. This lens will fit all cameras with Micro 4/3 mount.
423083
I have the sel18105G. I didn't compare it with other lens and I am an amateur photographer. All I can say is that I think it is great withnice crisp photos.
839198
You would get a lot more bang for fewer bucks by replacing the D-90 body (12.4 mpix DX format) with a new D-610 (24.3 mpix FX format) if your 200 mm lens is in that format also, i.e., if it is the 70-200 FX zoom. Plus, HD video and faster internal processing.
1856380
It is an excellent lens for landscape photography. Light, sharp, relatively inexpensive, takes filters. You can get marginally better iq if you want to pay twice or 3 times as much
890712
Bill, I have a K20D also and tried this lens on it - the distortion was apparent at 18mm indoors.. I only tried the lens on the camera.. never used it as I did not get all the proper paperwork nor a lens shield with it... so I returned it the next day to Amazon for a full refund.. only because of the seller.. not the lens itself.. I'd also say.. read as many reviews on it as possible before buying..
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
1588428
In my case AF speed is very important, also with the 2x the max apperture is 5.6 which will not blur too much the background, is slower and will lead to higher ISO's... But that's my requirements I have a baby boy and love to take pictures in low light as well as sports... If you are into bird photography or will always shoot with good light 2x is still a fine tool.
2052960
I can't talk about the 16-85 DX, but the 24-85 FX is a good lens. It also depends on what camera you use. Note that the 24-85 is a full-frame lens, so if you use it on a DX camera, it will act as a 36-127. The 16-85 is a DX (cropped) lens, so it will act as a 24-127 no matter what camera you use.
1987592
Olympus bodies have built in image stabilization, and so does this lens. That is not a problem, and in my opinion, the lens is better than the Olympus 40-150, if only because it is significantly smaller and lighter. Conclusion: Not a bad idea at all.
1847198
Yes it's a prime lens and if you use it on a dx camera you'll have to back up a bit not so much on fx cameras of course out doors ,distance would be less of a issue. Unless you need 1.4 there are better choices out there like a 14-24 or 16-35.
284748
Its interesting that you should ask. I have a friend who owns a D800 and has both DX and Full Frame lenses. He says his DX lenses work just fine on the camera automatically (no adjustment). I would think that the D600 does the same. The only thing I'm not sure of is the effective pixel reduction (if any) because a smaller amount of the sensor is being exposed. NIKON must have some literature on this and I've found that Thom Hogan ("ByThom") is really good at responding to questions like this. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and it produces spectacular images on my D300. The question is whether you are willing to sacrifice the effective range with the crop factor that would still happen regardless of whether the camera you are using is full frame or DX -- that is the effective DX range is 16.5-24. You could just buy one of the other excellent 12-24 lenses out there and have the full frame wide field. But those are a lot more expensive and as Rockwell has pointed out, this is the sharpest lens in its class and having used it for some time, I think he's right.
2235088
I was just debating the SX20 vs SX30, so I was really glad to find this discussion. I assumed the 30 would be an improvement, but it sounds from this discussion and many customer reviews that 20 is a better choice for image quality.
591605
the 20mm lens is a bit slower to focus but considerably sharper, I used them both with Cross Country action shots, and the 20mm blew the 17mm out of the photographic water so to speak.
391685
I noticed that the SD 960 actually has a faster lens than the SX 200, but I much prefer the beefier body styling and extra zoom on the SX 200. I just wonder how much a difference F/3.4 compared to a F/2.8 in a compact camera like this would really make? I've also been thinking about picking up the LX3, but hearing you say you would trade in makes me wonder, have you found the F/2.0 lense to be a big difference compared to other compacts?
423677
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter: - It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces - It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful - It's about $150 less - If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy!
591607
I had a 20mm MkI on a GX1 side by side. I also have the EM10 with 17mm. I can't comment on the image quality. I sold my old Panny stuff and jumped on Oly camp without doing much. The 20mm is actually slower to focus compare to the 17mm on both cameras.
1351164
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera. If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own.