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

Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness

Vlad_IT

US
1354 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness"

Vlad_IT Silver Member Nikonian since 21st Sep 2011
Wed 30-Jan-13 03:40 PM | edited Wed 30-Jan-13 03:40 PM by Vlad_IT

Brain,

You must be remember when I was a younger member of Nikonians, I received a lot of criticism for comparing lenses based on the same subject – part of the face, including an eye, an eyebrow, lashes, nose, skin (skin hair). This way, with the lens is wide open and close-up distances is AF “misses” one part of the face – something else will be in focus and well defined to see and compare. I usually take series of pictures (10-15) and compare resolution on my PS at 1:1 magnification. FL is variable, but three other parameters are always constant 1. Aperture is wide opened (semi-constant, depending on a lens. 2. Shutter speed is /320. 3. ISO is 100. Manual mode and not bright light in the room, monopod, exposure is adjusted by Speedlight, VR is Normal and ON, if applicable.
This setup allow me to judge if ii like the lens or not to start with, and then I’m trying to adapt to the lens, if it’s necessary.

I will do a test outside today to see if I missed something last evening. On my books 17-55 is suppose to be superb for party/weddings setup with a lot of half-length portraits taken and I was just not impessed with what I saw yesterday from my tests.
And I just wanted to hear other’s opinion if comparing 17-55 PRO-Glass to Big-Kings PRO-Glass is comparing apples and oranges.


I think this can qualify. The first one is strait conversion from NEF, the second one with sharpening applied. The result image after sharpening is more than satisfactory to me. But i would get the same quality results strait out of 70-200 VRII without PP. That’s why I wanted to look for other opinion about 17-55 in general and my copy in particular.





A general, generic topic Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness [View all] , Vlad_IT Silver Member , Wed 30-Jan-13 02:34 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
1
Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
2
Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
3
Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
6
     Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
4
          Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
5
Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
7
     Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
8
          Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
9
               Reply message RE: Brians to the rescue! 17-55 vs 70-200 sharpness
10