Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Kirk Hinrich, Nov 14, 2008.
I wants one. Fucking couldn't get the cash together to pick up that other one going on here for 500.
Thought you bought one already?
nope. Dude I am incapable of making a decision. Still have no lens. Have a battery now though, at least.
I think to start I am just gonna go 50 1.8 and the 18-200.
thats what i got..
50 1.8 ftw
not so much 18-200
just get the 50 for now and then decide what to get later... at least you'll have a lens.
im looking around for a deal on one
god im stingy
in for another girth kirk and xenon thread
members only, nga
picture > 100 words
18-200 pic is at f/6.3 and 28-70 pic is at f/4 both coming from about the same distance and focal length.
both at 100%
28-70 > *
Unless you have the 24-70, of course.
28-70 sucks, it turned a hot chick into a meh dude
Completely different lighting, you can't compare the two.
For a fair comparison you'd have to have all variables fixed, except for the lens.
With that said, the 18-200 is obviously softer than the 28-70, generally speaking.
eh, both were taken in a low lit room with a flash.
i understand they should be fixed to be completely fair, but in terms of overall sharpness I think it gives a pretty good idea.
isnt the 28-70 like 3x the price?
I have the same, plus a 10-20 sigma and for now I don't need anything else. To travel the 18-200 is perfect (light compared to faster)
I really enjoy the 18-200VR it's a very good lens overall.
The zoom is awesome and with VR the lens really shines.
is that a 100% crop of the suntrust building, if not, that's kind of useless
I dont think it is, I think its a zoomed in 2nd picture to show how a zoom works
We understand that, but if you downsize a picture in post it will appear sharper than it really is.
Maybe I used the wrong smilie, I meant to use a shrug
there's no way its that sharp at 200.
It's pretty sharp to me @ 200