Image quality of different zoom lenses

[mikoh4792]

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".

It did, I was replying to Goodguy's post. He wrote "holly" to be exact but I think he meant holy

 

[mikoh4792]

[
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 ?

Using d5200

 

[mikoh4792]

........... 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.

Oh okay.

I'll mainly be shooting snakes in my house... sometimes I will take them outside on a good sunny day, so weight/size isn't a big deal. Other than that, I'll be doing zoo photography as well.

 

[mikoh4792]

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.

Holy chi+! that's a nice lens.

 

[jaomul]

Just one other thing. It is said earlier the 70-300mm is better than the 55-300mm. It likely is, except in the 55-69mm area. This is nit picking but if you were taking shots at say a ballet dance with only one lens and one camera, 55 may frame a pair of dancers but 70 would cut there limbs. In this case if you were stationary the 55-300mm would serve better. Sometimes the rating of a lens is down to how useful it is over out and out performance