from 18-200 to 24-120 vs 28-300
4 months ago
dammit keep posting in the wrong forum. anyway, specifically referring to those who went from dx 18-200 to fx 24-120 or 28-300:
1. those who went 24-120: honestly, do you miss having the 120-300mm range? or does it look fine if you crop it to a 300mm fov?
2. those who went 28-300: honestly, do you find it's not that sharp, too heavy, or you'd rather have a 24mm wide angle?
context: i want ONE jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none lens, and for me the 18-200 was mostly fine for my crappy vacation pictures (except for really low light), not viewed at 100%, on my 23" 1920x1080 screen. long story short, that's gone and i have a d600. over my 18-200's life, 33.8% were taken at the widest setting (27mm in 35mm equivalent), 49.4% from 28-120mm, and 16.8% from 121-300mm (half at 300mm). the 24-120 would probably benefit the 33.8% (wide) end of things but the 16.8% (tele) is nice to have. i like all kinds of stuff -- mountains, fireworks, weddings, portraits, indoor graduations, ancient ruins, squirrels, rocks, people and streets at night, clouds, etc., though more on the wider side of things and not really sports or flowers. i'm just wondering which way people swung and if they were surprised either way.