18-200 vr

[manaheim]

Wow this lens is pretty slick. I took a picture in flourescant (not very bright light) with a 1/20th shutter time handheld and it was tack sharp.

The colors seem really nice on the lens as well... is that my imagination? Do different lenses reproduce colors differently?

The zoom on this thing is INSANE. I actually almost made myself sick zooming in and out on the thing.

 

[JerryPH]

I noticed the color reproduction was slightly different vs the Sigma lenses for sure. Its mostly in the contrast, though, that I saw the most obvious changes.

Low light is not this lens' forte, but with the VR, it does seem to be able to hold it's own.

Glad to see you enjoing it... and I hear Dramamine helps with the motion sickness... lol

 

[manaheim]

I've actually noticed the color thing on three lenses now... the 50mm seems to favor warmer colors a bit unless it is in very even light... the sigma 10-20mm I have seems to actually do best with night shots, but tends to seem to wash out a bit on brighter days... this lens seemed pretty dead-on on the few shots I've used it for.

I'm going to bring it to my daughter's soccer game tomorrow and see how it does.

 

[craig]

That is correct. Different lenses do reproduce colours differently. Mostly it has to do with the coating on the glass and the way it it interprets light. Hence names like ED etc.

Love & Bass

 

[manaheim]

That is correct. Different lenses do reproduce colours differently. Mostly it has to do with the coating on the glass and the way it it interprets light. Hence names like ED etc.

I actually find that kind of alarming... I've always assumed that, well... glass is glass. I'm going to need to pay careful attention to this going forward.

Thanks for the tip!

 

[invisible]

Suggestion: do not even attempt to use this lens to shoot architecture, especially if you are being paid to do so. At its widest, this lens produces solid distortions.

 

[JerryPH]

At its widest, this lens produces solid distortions.

...which is easily correctable in most cases for all but the most stringent needs in post process.

Architecural photographers won't even be using "standard" lenses for those stringent cases, they would be using Tilt/Shift lenses to make sure distortion is as low as possible.

Its there (the distortion) but its not terrible. I've seen worse... lol

 

[manaheim]

Suggestion: do not even attempt to use this lens to shoot architecture, especially if you are being paid to do so. At its widest, this lens produces solid distortions.

hehe, yeah I read the reviews... it REALLY goes south at the widest zoom. Like, amazingly bad.

I know you're all going to be horrified, but it's actually a WAY better lens than the 28-100 that I use now for detail shots on some of the buildings I shoot. I wouldn't use either for wide stuff, but if I need to capture points of architectural interest or something, this is the lens I use.

You have to keep in mind that GENERALLY my shots are not really architecture... they're commercial real-estate. 90% of the buildings I shoot are butt ugly. Like REALLY bad. Most of the rest are merely dull office buildings. If I happen to get a really nice one, I break out the 80-200 2.8 and the 50mm 1.8 and go to town, but literally... of the 20 or so buildings I've done... this has happened twice. It's scary.

Don't fret, though (I know you're fretting, I can see it from here) , I'm not totally loopy. The next lens on the list will be a 28-85ish 2.8. That will give me an excellent range for a variety of detail in quality glass.