yk_feng

<p>Dear Shun,<br>

Thanks for your recommendation! I also find it's a little bit inconvenient, but since I already did like this, I will have to utilize tham as much as possible though.<br>

17-35 is a great lense, however, I don't have enough money to invest it in.<br>

Do you have any experience with this lens 28-105?<br>

Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>

<p>Dear Marko,<br>

Thanks for your comments! Actually I intended to ask if anyone here has experienced this lense and how do they like this lens.<br>

Yes, I tested the lens with D90 instead of F80, sorry for confusing caused. By the way, I used exact the same shutter speed with both lenses, that is how differently the 2 lenses performed.<br>

Thanks a lot!<br>

BRs, Brighton</p>

<p>This is 100% magnification of image centers, 28-105 one is sharper, obviously.</p><div></div>

<p>This is another image, shot at 35mm, aperture was put at F11, 1/60s, I found the 28-105 one has stronger color and contrastive;</p><div></div>

<p>Humm, the color fringer of the 28-105 one is more obvious than 18-105, if we look at the softness, this two are similar.</p><div></div>

<p>These were shot at 105mm with largest aperture, we found the 28-105 one (left) is softer; besides, 18-105 is a DX lens, so there are vignette at corners, while 28-105 one is fine.</p><div></div>

<p>This is the edge of the 2 images, no significant difference except for distortion.</p><div></div>

<p>This is the 100% magnification of center, we can see the 18-105 one is softer;</p><div></div>

<p>Images in the left were shot with 28-105D, images in the right were shot with 18-105VR, if not otherwise specified.<br>

The 1st image was shot at 35mm, F8 1/400, as we can see, 18-105 one already has visable distortion;</p><div></div>

<p>First of all, I don't think it's silly to downgrade my gear, I made the decision based on what gear I have and how much I know about lenses.<br>

By the way, I'd suggest the following people not read this post:<br />1. Professional or full-time photographers; <br />2. Photographers who has tremendous bank balance; <br />3. Photographers who is strictly picky on the image quality;<br />4. Photographers who deem photography is showcase of gears;</p>

<p>Other amateurs may want to continue to read down through:</p>

<p>I'd admit expensive lenses are generally better than cheaper ones, while on the other hand, if you cannot get good images with cheaper lenses, then more expensive lenses will not bring you better images either.<br>

No time for nonsense! I am also a very ordinary amateur, I only want beginners to think rationally and expense rationally.</p>

<p>Having compared a lot among economical lenses, I finally got the AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5D at about USD 130, this was a very popular lens in the era of F100 and it matches F80 perfectly. In the same time, I sold my AF-S 18-105VR without any regret.</p>

<p>The reason why I downgraded my gear are as below:<br />1. I already have a Tokina 12-24/F4, so I am not sad with loss of wide angle of 18-28mm;<br />2. There is a quasi-macro function, that is exciting for those who does not want to invest in a true macro lens, like myself; <br />3. It is slightly faster than the AF-S 18-105VR, and it seems 28-105 is more solid</p>

<p>To me the advantages of this lens are:<br />1. Focusing is fairly fast, that is what beyond my expectation;<br />2. 9-bladed aperture ring makes better bokeh;<br />3. Range of focal length is versatile; <br />4. Low distortion, especially on DX camera;</p>

<p>Every coin has 2 sides, there are weaknesses:<br />1. Manual focus is not precise because the turn of focusing ring is too short; <br />2. Need to move a switch to get to macro mode at focal length between 50-105mm, reversely, need to focus at greater than 2 feet if you want to move back to regular mode; <br />3. After all it was introduced 10+ years ago, there is no ED element, nor VR. While this is not what I care, because both of the 2 lenses have color fringes, furthermore, hand-holding capability is also important, and a tripod is a must if I do macro shootings;<br />4. The filter thread rotates with zoom;</p>

<p>Hey upstair guy, everybody understands what macro lens means, meaningless to "correct" me.<br>

Also I don't think I have posted under wrong thread, I was asking for a suggestion between 2 Nikon lens actually.<br>

Lastly, everyone has his first post in a forum just like yourself years ago, correct? my senior peer...</p>

<p>Dear my friends,<br>

Thanks very much for all of your kind advices on my lens choosing! Also I am now clearer about the magnification ratio, special thanks for Tommy Lee and Joe Rodeo for your comprehensive interpretation.<br>

I will gonna know more about each of your suggestions before I can make my decision. Thanks a lot!<br>

Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>

 

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I am a beginner in the photography field but have strong interests in shooting of micro objects, such as insects or other small animals, I own a D90 camara with a 501.8D and 18-105 kit lens, now I am doing macro shooting with a reverse ring or extension ring extended on my 501.8D, but I will always need to take too much time to have objects focused well, recently I have a strong willingness to own a macro lens to make my shootings easier, but I feel I am not clear about the concept of "magnifying ratio" and how it impacts one's consideration when choosing a lense, so I've no idear whether I should buy a 105VR or 60AF-S Macro, could anyone feed me with some basic knowledge of macro lens, or advise on which one will fit me better?<br>

Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>