Image quality of different zoom lenses

[mikoh4792]

Between lenses like the nikkor 18-105, 18-55, 18-300, 70-300....etc, why are some better than others in terms of image quality? For example I've been surfing the web and I hear that the 70-300mm is better than the 55-200mm.. but is there a reason why? Is it not the same glass, just different focal range?

In that case, excluding the wide aperature lenses(2.8) and the more expensive zooms, which zooms are the best for Nikon cameras?(ie. 70-300? 18-105?)

 

[mikoh4792]

Sorry if these are very amateurish questions, I'm new to photography, and even newer to picking the right glass for my camera

 

[480sparky]

All lenses are collection of compromises. There is no such thing as 'perfect' optics. ALL lenses will have optical characteristics that are to the detriment of the image. Chromatic abberation, coma, astigmatism, vignetting, etc. are all part of the package deal. As the saying goes, "Warts and all." There is no way, at least in this universe, to completely and totally eliminate them.

Yes, they can reduce these problems, but the resulting lens is most likely one that has no retail viability. It will be far too large, heavy and expensive. So designers must make choices. Accept a bit of certain optical issues in exchange for creating a lens that people will want to pay for.

Some lenses are designed and created to reduce the optical issues as much as possible, and are intended for the pro market ("Top-shelf glass" and "Trinity" come to mind). Other lenses will be made with more 'warts' as they are destined for the amateur market ("Kit" lenses).

 

[mikoh4792]

Thanks 480sparky. With that in mind, between zooms like the 55-300 vs 70-300mm vs 18-300.... if I am not concerned about focal range, is there a noticeable difference in sharpness between these lenses?

 

[Designer]

For your reading pleasure:

Lens Reviews / Previews: Digital Photography Review

 

[mikoh4792]

Great link! Thanks Designer.

 

[KmH]

There are 3 grades of lens: Consumer/Kit grade, prosumer grade, professional grade.

The 18-55, 18-105, and 55-200 are consumer grade lenses. Most of Nikon's consumer grade lenses are DX lenses
The AF-S 70-300 VR is a prosumer grade lens and is an FX lens. The older AF 70-300 (no VR) is an FX lens but is a consumer grade lens.

The 18-300 superzoom lens is a special case. It's a prosumer grade DX lens but the but the 16x+ zoom range adds design constraints that contribute to IQ issues.
Any lens having a 10x+ zoom range is usually known as a superzoom lens. Superzoom lens IQ is often only compared to other superzoom lenses because of the unique design constraints imposed by the extreme zoom ranges involved.

 

[goodguy]

You really are asking great question about lenses, something that sometimes gets even me still a little bit confused.
I am assuming you are asking because you want to have the knowledge so you can get the best lens for your buck.
Smart move, always good to know what you buy before you buy it rather then buy and then find out for the money you could have bought something much better.

I would say there are few approaches to this issue.
If you are a novice trying to stretch you money as much as possible then get the 18-105mm VR or 18-140mm VR not only they have a better foal length but also a bit better optically then the 18-55mm
To that you add the 70-300mm VR, again its the better lens then the 55-300mm or 55-200mm

Other approaches are more an issue of money.
If your pocket is a bit bigger and you really want the best and sharpest results you can either get the holly trinity
Nikon 14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 which gives you great flexibility, great results but will cost you close to 6K$
Another possibility, cheaper and will give you even better results but is less flexible is get few prime lenses instead
Nikon 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8

For me as always I am a great believer of the middle road, I think best is own good zoom lens and few good prime lenses, kind of enjoy the best of both worlds.

I hope my post helps a bit and not confuse you, good luck on your quest and remember most importantly is not to take this too seriously and have fun

 

[mikoh4792]

You really are asking great question about lenses, something that sometimes gets even me still a little bit confused.
I am assuming you are asking because you want to have the knowledge so you can get the best lens for your buck.
Smart move, always good to know what you buy before you buy it rather then buy and then find out for the money you could have bought something much better.

I would say there are few approaches to this issue.
If you are a novice trying to stretch you money as much as possible then get the 18-105mm VR or 18-140mm VR not only they have a better foal length but also a bit better optically then the 18-55mm
To that you add the 70-300mm VR, again its the better lens then the 55-300mm or 55-200mm

Other approaches are more an issue of money.
If your pocket is a bit bigger and you really want the best and sharpest results you can either get the holly trinity
Nikon 14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 which gives you great flexibility, great results but will cost you close to 6K$
Another possibility, cheaper and will give you even better results but is less flexible is get few prime lenses instead
Nikon 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8

For me as always I am a great believer of the middle road, I think best is own good zoom lens and few good prime lenses, kind of enjoy the best of both worlds.

I hope my post helps a bit and not confuse you, good luck on your quest and remember most importantly is not to take this too seriously and have fun

Awesome, great advice.

Currently I have 50mm 1.8, 18-105mm and 105mm macro lens.

I'm not trying to take "professional quality" photos but I do appreciate good glass that is affordable. I hink the holy trinity combo sounds great. All the focal lenses covered with decent quality.

 

[goodguy]

[
Awesome, great advice.

Currently I have 50mm 1.8, 18-105mm and 105mm macro lens.

I'm not trying to take "professional quality" photos but I do appreciate good glass that is affordable. I hink the holy trinity combo sounds great. All the focal lenses covered with decent quality.

You see, you already have good glass and I might be wrong but I think the Nikon 105mm is used by pro's.
BTW what camera are you using ?

 

[480sparky]

........... I hink the holy trinity combo sounds great. All the focal lenses covered with decent quality.

Yet they are still not ideal. All being f/2.8 lenses, they are all fairly heavy and large. And, of course, there's the matter of price.......

The 14-24 does not allow filters. At all. Period. Not even rear-mount gels. So if filters become important to your style of shooting, you need to either jerry-rig something or pony up for a 3rd-party filter system for it. And filters, no matter what or how you mount them, get pricey when you're shooting in the >20mm range.

 

[Gavjenks]

Because they are all completely different designs.

It's the equivalent of asking "Why are there differences between a Toyota Camry and a Toyota Corolla? Aren't they the same steel?" Well actually they might not even be (nor might the zooms all have the same chemical composition of glass!), but aside from that, they are designed with different priorities in mind. Price point vs. speed vs. mileage, etc., to appeal to different market needs, and all operating under the constraints of physics.

Wider zoom range = more convenience, but more weight, more cost for a given aperture than a short zoom range. Longer range = bigger glass to collect enough light. Etc. etc.

 

[Designer]

I hink the holy trinity combo sounds great.

Just as a side note; Sparky's note did not contain the term "holy". It is simply a collection of lenses, and not actually "holy".

 

[480sparky]

Just as a side note; Sparky's note did not contain the term "holy". It is simply a collection of lenses, and not actually "holy".

It IS holy in the sense you have a religious experience when you pay for them.

 

[Derrel]

Take a look at how badly the Nikkor 14-24 trounces a landscape fanatic's cherry-picked Canon 14mm f/2.8 L prime lens.
Nikon 14-24mm G Test v Canon 14mm L II

"Holy" chi+!

The zoom is better than an L-series prime lens, in every metric. Part of the reason is that it is a NEW lens design, and it STAYS WITHIN its "type", meaning it's strictly a wide-angle zoom, not a wide-to-normal, and not a wide-to-normal-to-tele. It also has a relatively short focal length ratio, not even 2:1. In other words, it's NOT a 10:1 ratio superzoom. Last, it's also large, and it's expensive. Retail price plays a BIG part in zoom lens quality. The 14-24 f/2.8 would not be the same quality is it were built to sell for $499.