Originally posted by SpecialK Nearly any of the 50 threads about the 55-300 do say it is great :-)
Seems to me you already have had some good recommendations that you seek.
I have both lenses I referred to, but not the 16-45. Doesn't matter - I can look at images from that lens and other - perhaps you should too.
I believe I said "reviews" as in professional reviews like photozine. Yes I have had some good recommendations, and if I wanted to go out and buy 5 different lenses I would not of bothered of making this thread
. If you have not owned or used the 16-45mm I guess this is not your thread to contribute in
. I am not sure how you can look at pictures online and be able to tell the "experience level of the photographer" or how much PS work has been done
.
Originally posted by gnaztee I currently own the DA 21, DA 12-24 and DA 17-70. I've previously owned the DA 16-45. I have never owned the FA 20. On the first four lenses, I would rank image quality (based scientifically on image output that I find most pleasing) in this order:
1. DA 21
1a. DA 12-24
3. DA 17-70
4. DA 16-45
Thanks for the reply!! This is what I was looking for
Originally posted by NaClH2O I like WA, so I own several lenses that are either 20mm or contain 20mm in their zoom range. in no particular order:
FA 20-35 f/3.5
DA L 18-55
FA 20 f/2.8
DA 12-24 f/4.0
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
I'd rate them: (all ratings at 20mm)
FA 20mm f/2.8 Excellent lens, contrasty, sharp corner to corner at all apertures, brutally sharp stopped down a bit, not particularily prone to flare, and a good close focuser, and easy to manually focus. Color rendition is excellent. If it was f/2.0 I'd rate it 10+. As it is it rates a 9.5.
FA 20-35mm f/3.5
I think the color rendition is slightly better than the FA 20mm but a mouse could starve on the difference. In all other aspects it's almost as good as the FA 20mm, but only just slightly less. The mouse isn't going to get any fatter. I'd rate it about 9.3 or so. The zoom is a plus.
DA 12-24 f4.0
Good lens excells at 12-18mm. Is very good above 18mm but not in the class of the two above. I'd rate it about 9.0 at 20mm
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Good lens, great as a walkabout lens. 20mm is very good but again not in the class of the first two. Same rating as the 12-24mm.
DA L 18-55. I've had several of these kit lenses and I've found a large degree of variance. This one (which came with my K-x) I'd rate no higher than 8.0 and that's stretching it. I've have had kit lenses that rated as high as 8.5.
NaCl(if you can find either of the first two you won't be disappointed)H2O
Thanks for the reply!! This is what I was looking for
Originally posted by Jewelltrail Hmmmm......Photozone says the Fa 20-35 f4 (there is no Fa 20-35 f3.5) is much sharper than the Fa 20 2.8. Fa zoom is also better with disotortions @ 20mm, than Fa prime. Photozone shows nothing bruttally sharp about the Fa 20mm prime--actually it is consistent as you stop down. Achilles heel of the Fa zoom is Ca, by far. Fa prime is excellent with Ca control.
Photozone shows Tamron 17-50mm. @ 20mm, as sharp or sharper &, in the case of wide open, sharper than the Fa prime--especially at the borders. Tamron zoom better with distortion than Fa prime. Tamron zoom close focuses just as close as Fa prime.
Photozone shows Da 12-24 about as sharp as Fa prime. But Da 12-24 better with distortions than Fa prime.
I think your assuming that testing is "cut and dry". There is probably a fair share of parameters they cant test for, let alone understand how to test for. If knowing a good lens was a easy as just putting it on a machine and spitting out numbers I am sure making "unreal lens" would be much easier then the endless hours of physics involved.
The sample size of lenses on some of these websites who do "professional reviews", seems to me very small (which means the data is not that reliable). Hence, one of the reason i was refering to the 55-300mm earlier