High End Nikon Lenses

[frank_skomial]

William got it right.

 

I have Nikkor 28-200 G, ED(3), Aspherical(3), etc. that is made of plastic, and some people dismiss the lens the low price or for whatever reason - most likely lack of skills or never used the lens. I also have the 70-200/2.8 VR monster lens. I shoot annual concert events.

 

In 2004 the 28-200 lens created as good photographs as the 70 -200 VR lens in 2005 and 2006. Looking back and compring thousands of photos from those concerts, I can only tell that it is easier to shot with the faster AF-S and VR lens. Both lenses in hands of experienced photographer, when the lighting is sufficient for the 28-200 at 5.6, produce equal quality photographs, when expecting at 100% pixel by pixel.

 

Needless to say, that at the same, shooting the same concerts with 84/1.4 lens and with 180/2.8 AF, provided much better quality photos nearly in all photos. It is hard to describe in words why, but mostly better sharpness corner to corner, better bokeh, color, or all of those elements combined all together.

[ruslan]

Each manufacturer (of mentioned above) has its top notch lenses. Canon 85/1.2 is much more expensive, than 85mm Nikkor or Zeiss. For examle Zeiss 50/1.7 is better than cheapest canon 50/1.8... All zeiss lenses are good. not canons :)