A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

Started Feb 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
inasir1971 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,623
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

philm5d wrote:

inasir1971 wrote:

The examples posted of the old version above are truly awful. Simply saying that they're good doesn't make them good. Similarly implying that 'pixel peep...to the nth degree' is pretty much the same as saying that 'if you think it's bad, you're looking too closely'.

Finding a lens that is worse than it doesn't make it any good.

An 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX lens that is passable on DX is one which is passable if you ignore 55% of the frame. That is a range which is covered by every single DX kit zoom at similar apertures, most fairly good (not passable only) and many with VR, and all with AF-S motors to make them compatible with all recent bodies.

The previous version is rubbish on FX and completely pointless on DX.

If the samples from the new one qualify as good (and they're only at 24MP resolution), then let me ask this, apart from it's predecessor and some obsolete film era primes is there anything worse?

I'm sure you're right old boy, what would I know about anything just because I have sold dozens of images from this rubbish lens and have a 60 inch canvas on the wall. Wait let me go put my nose up to the corners - gosh there's a little bit of softness there, must rip it down and trash it.

Amateur photographers - don't you just love 'em.

The logic here goes something like this:

*I've sold prints => my prints are good => the lens I used is good => you think the lens is not good but i know better => * (repeat from beginning)

How do you make the step from 'my prints are good' to 'the lens is good'?

Good photographs don't necessarily need 'good' lenses just as 'good' lenses don't necessarily produce good photographs. One is a description of a tool, the other is a description of what you do with the tool - the two are not in any way necessarily correlated.

Why does it matter what anyone else thinks of a lens? It's not a comment about your work?

"let me go put my nose up to the corners - gosh there's a little bit of softness there". I see I should step backwards till everything looks perfect - the deficiency lies with the way I'm observing, not with the lens? In that case, guess all these people buying anything other than super-zooms need to have their heads checked.

 inasir1971's gear list:inasir1971's gear list
Sony RX1R II Nikon D4 Nikon D850
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow