Hi Saycheese78,
Thanks again for the reply.
Hmm......seriously i not sure if its just me, but picture quality is important, more so than convenience. And the 18-105mm is a really good range if i can live with the in my opinion ok only picture quality. Of course the picture quality could be due to my skillsets but at same setting 50mm outperforms 18-105mm significantly for me to want to change.
To get the 16-85 new is about say 950, i would top up 600 after selling off my 18-105. I honestly not so sure if the quality difference will be worth that much? hahahaha
Or do u think i should keep my 18-105 and TRY my very best to like it while using the $$ to get a UWA and flash? :think:
hehehehe
sorry to make my problem yours ;p
tks
cheers,
kilkenny
actually the best is to try out urself
and what shooting style and budget that u have
if u dun mind keep on changing lens for the range that the 50mm can't cover
then buy all means
for me
i will sacrifice some sharpness for the convenient of 18-200
and also i dun pixel peeping..
so i dun even notice the 'sharpness'
it all depends on what u actually need
if u pixel peeping and u want convenient
then buy those F2.8 zoom lens
else just get some goodprime to cover ur range
for my style.. 1 lens is enough
by the time u change lens
the subject might have moved on....
*imagine u traveling with tons of lenses
I absolutely agree.
But I think Kilkenny is throwing his 18-105 at 1 corner because of preference for 50F1.8 quality. Ehh. wah so good meh? (besides bokeh, actually I still think if you want bokeh, go for zoom.) That probably means Kilkenny's taste had outgrown the 18-105. Will the 16-85 being a minute upgrade satisfy the taste or does he need the holy trinity.. (drum beats)
Or is it purely a case of bokeh. If thats the case, there are better options than 16-86. 16-85 bokeh sucks big time and as a portrait lens, quality is not that fantastic.
Yeah 18-200 is a good lens for most people who do not have time to change lens during standard tours overseas. The best part with that lens is that when you want to go serious, pair it with a UWA, 50F1.4, 30F1.4, you have the best of both worlds. (how many of us have the luxury of staying at a tourist spot for hours?) Thats a cool $3k + for lens though.
Hahahah
Thanks everyone. Three cheers for CS. My problem is now everybodys! ;p
I am sure there are numerous combinations differing on budget and preference. And its tough to choose as a newbie. I am very inclined towards the 16-85 ( i dun do some much zoom, mainly landscape and portrait at the moment) as its a range i can live with.
So i am just hoping to get a really good copy for that. Orient photo quoted me 950 for the tokina 11-16 , so with my budget, i think a lens to better the 18-105 at the moment is 16-85. Cos i still need to get my billingham( vain what to do :dunnoand sb600.
Nothing else within the budget of 1K seems attractive to me so i am keeping my fingers really crossed and hoping that e 16-85 works out for me.
Cheers,
kilkenny
2mm difference at the wide end between 16mm and 18mm is negligible to me.
If i were in your shoes and do not have money to purchase all the gears i want in a go i will get the 11-16 if i want that wide angle or the sb-600 flash unit. 16-85mm if you really think the glass and image reproduction is superior over your existing lenses. 2mm difference at the wide end between 16mm and 18mm is negligible to me.
hmmm seems tt 16-85 is a good to have lens and possibly superior within its range if you dun mind paying more.