Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

WA image quality comparison

MotoMannequin

Livermore, CA, US
8582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

"RE: WA image quality comparison"

MotoMannequin Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography Registered since 11th Jan 2006
Sun 09-Sep-12 01:58 AM

I'll probably get myself in trouble for saying this, but (while I slip into some asbestos underwear) that 20mm prime is not considered a great lens, although it might exceed your 18-200 at 20mm. Either way you're duplicating existing functionality by replacing an ok lens with an ok lens. With your kit, that's not where I'd recommend you put your money.

I don't know what you're paying but in that price range, ultra-wide options like Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 will open up new worlds to your camera.

Or if you're looking for a faster lens to do subject isolation, AF-S lenses 28mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.8DX, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G will offer more interesting options, depending on what subject matter interests you most.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

A topic tagged as having a question WA image quality comparison [View all] , JohnPlev , Sat 08-Sep-12 09:56 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
1
Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
2
     Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
3
          Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
4
               Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
5
                    Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
6
                         Reply message RE: WA image quality comparison
7