Thom 16-85VR and 18-105 DX review is up

Started Feb 16, 2009 | Discussions thread
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: Thom 16-85VR and 18-105 DX review is up

zzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I agree, but Thom wrote - "which doesn't really go to 200 for most
uses". He is assuming too much.

"Most" would have a definition of "over 50% of the time." So what you're saying is that you use the 200mm part of the lens on subjects 200 feet or more away more than half the time. That would be "telephoto as landscape lens" types of applications. In my observation of users of the 18-200mm lens, that's simply not true. I'd gauge that "most" of the use tends to be in the under 50 feet range. That's why I wrote the comment. You can certainly entitled to your own opinion as it concerns your own work, but I'd want to see some evidence that your statement is more correct than mine before I'd even consider changing my comment. You haven't offered any.

He also said (in the "review") that the 16-85 has a more useful range
than the 18-200. I have nothing to say about that comment except

Wide angle starts to give you perspective possibilities you don't otherwise have for the same subject. A 24mm equivalent opens up possibilities you don't have at 28mm. A 200mm doesn't really add to the possibilities you have at 135mm. If you go back to the days of primes, you'll find that photographers tended to have more wide angle lenses than telephoto. Indeed, you can even see a bit of that in the lenses that Nikon produced (outside of the exotics): basically four telephoto primes (85, 105, 135, 180) versus five wides (18, 20, 24, 28, 35), and the wides had many more variants.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow