With regards to the looks of the new lenses, it seems that
the plastic look is here to stay. The thicker zoom and focus
rings make these "Gold Ring" lenses look like entry level
plastic lenses.
They sure don't make them like they used to! :thumbsd:
Agree. No doubt that the 70-200 is a better lens coz of its sharpenss and VR. But from a performance/price point of view, the 80-200 can more than justify it's worth. Money saved can go into buying other glass!! ;)
Wah.. you have done such comprehensive tests.
Totally agree with them. This is a great lens!! Very versatile. :thumbsup: ;)
I have one to let go if anyone is interested. Had to think hard about letting it go,
but I need the space in my dry cabi and the funds for new toys. Heh...
Hmm.. beg to differ. My 35F2 is very sharp wide open. And so it my 17-55. Perhaps it is a variation in the actual pieces we own. As much as my 17-55 gives me good colours, my 35F2 gives me that extra brightness that the zoom doesn't. Also the distortion in the 17-55 sometimes makes me slightly...
I set mine manually in tricky lighting. I use a D80 by the way.
Ow.. and purple lighting sux. Took some pics at an event where the ballroom lighting was purple. Turned out like the colours in the movie Cocktail. Horrible! ;(
I have both the 24-85f2.8-4.0 and the 18-135f3.5-5.6.
I got the 18-135f3.5-5.6 as part of the kit so I'll talk about that first.
- Super sharp at the centre. Equal or similar to pro lenses.
- Great colours in good light.
- Excellent range at the wide and the long end.
- Small aperture so...