Do You Really See A Difference?

[teng.xiong]

Do you really see a difference in quality with the stock D80 18x135mm lense

vs. the 17x55mm 1200.00 lense?

[erik_loza]

Nikon's constant-aperture ED zooms are truly a breed apart.

[johndc]

absolutely.

 

as far as the difference when looking through the viewfinder goes, you can clearly see a dramatic difference in distortion between the two, as well as higher contrast and overall clarity and brightness, all in favor of the 17-55.

 

that's not even mentioning the build quality difference, which is obvious.

 

the advantage of the 18-135 is size, weight, and cost, but at the expense of image quality and durability. it's a consumer zoom -- you shouldn't expect it to perform on par with the 17-55. it wasn't designed to do that.

[teng.xiong]

Well, I have this week-end to test out the new 17X55 lense... After pondering about it for a day, I decided to get it and sold the 18X135 for 275.00 so, I'll let you guys know!

[leicaglow]

It's unmistakable with the other "kit lenses". So is the 17-35mm f/2.8.

[elliot1]

I have the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. As far as build quality - Yes. As far as speed (focussing) - yes.

 

Picture quality is another story. Under controlled conditions, and setting each lens to its most beneficial settings (aperture), there will be very little difference in picture quality. For example, my low cost 55-200 dx produces images virtually identical to my 70-200. In the field, there is a noticable difference.

 

Ultimately, it depends on what you are shooting.

 

I have tested my 18-200 vr (equivalent in picture quality to the 18-135) against my 17-55. When the 18-200 is stopped down do f8, picture quality is virtually identical to the 17-55. Skin tones are close, but you can see a difference (for the better) with the 17-55, but it is just slight. But, I would never use my 18-200 in place of the 17-55 when I shoot weddings or other events.

 

Again, it depends on what your are shooting and how you shoot. Is the 17-55 worth 3-4 times the price? It depends on what and how you are shooting, what you results you want/expect and of course your finances.

 

For me, the answer is yes. But if I was not doing event photography, I would probably not have either of them and just use the 18-200.

[craig_gillette]

I know that when I started out with my KM 7D, the lens I first used was my consumer 28-105. While not necessarily always obvious, there are clear differences between that and the 28-70/2.8 G. I would expect that similar differences exist across all of the lens lines. Are they necessarily worth the $1000 more or less price differentials? Not for everybody.

 

But part of this is growing in the ability to see what is technically available in the pictures we take. If one wants and is happy with 4x6 consumer prints and low res on screen viewing, then they probably shouldn't spend that extra $1000. If the viewer's first reaction is, "Oh, that's a nice picture of cousin Sarah, put it on the piano with the other cousins." that's a different set of interests than the one who looks at it and thinks about some distortion, odd shadows, the odd bokeh, etc., etc.

[bob_flood1]

Apparently, there are quality control variations in the 18-135. A few months ago, while entertaining myself with the idea of buying a D80, I spent some time fiddling with one in a local store. The 18-135 on it was the worst lens for distortion I'd ever seen. I pointed it at the store windows and saw obvious barrel distortion at 18 mm and terrible pincushion at 135. The pincushion decreased slowly as I backing off from 135 and didn't go away in the finder until I got down to almost 50 mm (easy to see against the square window frames I used for the test). The barreling went away pretty quickly above 18 mm. I decided that, if I buy a D80, it will be body-only.

 

Then Mrs Santa gave me a D80 for Christmas (thank you, dear). It came with the 18-135 and I feared the worst, but it has none of these problems! I've run several tests to learn its capabilities, and I find no meaningful barrel or pincushion, and I've been looking for it specifically.

 

This tells me that quality control in manufacturing is problemmatic, and either their inspection process sucks or their acceptance criteria are too lax. Quite a change from years ago.

[anthony_bez]

Bob, Wow you can test a lens looking through a D80 viewfinder, cool!

[marike1]

"I have tested my 18-200 vr (equivalent in picture quality to the 18-135) against my

17-55. When the 18-200 is stopped down do f8, picture quality is virtually identical to the

17-55."

 

I have both the 17-55 2.8 and the 18-70 3.5-4.5 which I am would imagine is as good, if

not better than the 18-135 due to it's more modest zoom range, and 3 ED + one

aspherical element. Since I just purchased the 17-55 2.8, I decided to test it against the

18-70 today. As I would have guessed, image quality is anything but "identical".

 

The other differences have to do with bokeh, the ability to do shallow DOF shots with the

2.8 zoom, build, color & contrast. I like the kit lens. It is capable of good images. But I

wouldn't presume that it or the 18-135, or 18-200 for that matter, was capable of the

same IQ as the 17-55.

 

Below is the results at f/8. Both shot with D70 on Gitzo 1325 on B1 ballhead. RAW

converted to JPEG in ACR<div></div>

[anthony_bez]

Markus, I am sure there is a difference but it does not show on my screen? I take it the crop was more revealing?

[aaron l]

There is a big difference in image quality and data. Rent the two lenses, shoot them at equivalent focal length at the same object. Don't move the camera and shoot on manual. The color and sharpness will be way better on the 17-55. Also, look at the file size. The 17-55 will always have a larger JPG size, indicating more data. This is a tougher test to do, though.

[marike1]

"Markus, I am sure there is a difference but it does not show on my screen?"

 

I don't think a monitor will make a diiference here. To me, the 18-70 100% crop looks

slightly blurry in comparison to the 17-55 crop. That said, the posted image is a heavily

compressed JPEG. In Photoshop, to conserve bandwidth, I did a Save For Web > JPEG

quality 70%. When I looked at the test shots side-by-side in iPhoto, the differences in

sharpness were more dramatic.

 

That said even on the posted samples, the crops are more telling. At f8 I didn't expect to

see much of a difference. But that is not the case, as my MacBook monitor shows better

sharpness for the 17-55 even in the compressed post. Also notice that the 17-55 image

is warmer.

 

Quite frankly, I am quite surprised that people are saying there is no difference in the

crops.

[johndc]

"Bob, Wow you can test a lens looking through a D80 viewfinder, cool!"

 

Bob never said he gave the lens a thorough test. He said he noticed distortion. You can clearly see distortion through the viewfinder, provided you know what you're looking at.

 

"Markus, I am sure there is a difference but it does not show on my screen? I take it the crop was more revealing?"

 

The contrast is noticeably higher in the second picture. However, since the colors do not match, the difference in contrast could be due to a color cast unrelated to the lens.

[hughmiley]

Anthony..... I can it very clearly. The 17 - 55 certainly seems a lot sharper, particularly in the 100% crop.

 

I have never used the 17-55, but I have to say that purely based on the constant aperture, it has to be a far better lense. In any case, regardless of any IQ variation. Having a constant 2.8 is going to produce far better images in a multitude of situations, whether it is because of faster shutter speeds, or better control over depth of field. Add to that the improved build quality and overall you have a "great" lense, as opposed to a "good" lense like the 18-135.

[anthony_bez]

"Quite frankly, I am quite surprised that people are saying there is no difference in the crops"

 

Markus, I wholeheartedly agree! for some reason I did not see the superimposed crops. Which do show a remarkable difference, as you note.

 

My comment not based on the crop, and my eye was drawn to the detail to the right of the full image. That is why I asked about the crop which must have seemed strange.

 

Thank you for posting the comparison it is a very useful reference.

[johndc]

The difference is plain as day in both the cropped and non-cropped portions of the sample.

[RaymondC]

My 2c.

 

The good lens may be nicer wide open, and issues with flare and things like that. The colors may be better, color separation etc. If you are showing to non photographers and if you are printing it to 6x4 or 5x7 consumer sizes and you are not comparing, you probably won't notice. The cheaper lens is still ok for snapshots and even framed up inside a room. If you are wanting for editorial, weddings etc.. you may want the better lens.

 

My own experience relates to a 85/1.8 prime vs a 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 lens.

 

If you are going to crop then of course the better lens would be better or close up usages etc when detail are more apparent but things like a scenary, group photo, walking around tourists photo's the cheaper one is still ok. But then again many times pple hike or go on the move, weight is always an issue even if you have them, some may want to take some lighterweight lenses. Many pro's have used v cheap lenses but may have to stop down to f/8 to "be there", such as Galen Rowell who have used a number of $100 lenses and a number of consumer plastic bodies.

[yuri_sopko]

I also agree the the differences are plain-as-day: color, contrast, and sharpness. More than an aperture difference. Maybe coatings, glass material, or some other optical aberations. Almost reminds me of when I had a Minolta MD and I had an older lens from the 70's and a similar one from the 80's. I did some test shots and there was a mega-huge difference as far as contrast and color where concerned. This, although obvious to me and others, not a mega-huge difference in my opinion.

 

Now, is there a trickle-down effect between the two lenses as far as technology and design? I am sure of it. And, is there an actual difference in overall quality between the two in this controlled condition? Yes. But, how often does one shoot in a controlled condition? Could some post-processing take care of the color and contrast? Also, would the difference in sharpness be still there after being printed?

 

However, as an amateur at best myself. I could not rationalize the expense. Even if it is a better, faster, faster AF, lens. A pro, making a living as a wedding photographer, no doubt. I would imagine you would need all that you could get.

[fred_bonnett2]

If someone has spent $1200 for a lens instead of $400 it is only human nature to see vast differences. But, when you get down to viewing the results --- there is not much, or any, difference.