18-200vr (vs) 17-55dx - PICS

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by txbonds, Jan 6, 2006.

  1. txbonds

    txbonds

    650
    Dec 10, 2005
    Florida
  2. first pic 17-55, second is 18-200?
     
  3. Steve S

    Steve S

    Feb 1, 2005
    SE Florida
    tough to judge this way since they need to be seen in their original size, and they definitely need to be viewed side by side to really draw any conclusions. I cannot tell the difference at all after viewing 2 shots sort of side by side using 2 browsers, so, there you go. For the vast majority of of regular folks looking to capture moments in their family's lives, there's not going to be any perceivable difference. For the 1% of the folks who look for the utmost in quality in every square in of frame, there probably will be. If you are going for the ultimate in picture quality, then first and foremost you better be shooting raw and not jpg. Were these made from converted nefs? :wink:
     
  4. txbonds

    txbonds

    650
    Dec 10, 2005
    Florida
    And The Answer Is:

    Lens A = 17-55dx

    Lens B = 18-200vr


    Good guessing..................
     
  5. lpcd2001

    lpcd2001 Guest

    Thanks for the test photos. Placing the photos side by side, the difference in contrast, color tone, color saturation, sharpness, details is very clear.
     
  6. txbonds

    txbonds

    650
    Dec 10, 2005
    Florida
    Really? I didn't think the contrast, tone and saturation were that different. what I saw as a difference was that the 17-55dx shots were cleaner and sharper throughout the entire shot (corners included) than the 18-200vr which had the benefit of VR being turned on.

    Maybe I'm not seeing something that you did.


     
  7. I saw a big difference in detail (sharpness), and did notice a tonal difference overall between the two lenses. I guess shooting with the 17-55, I've come to recognize its great quality - a superb lens.

    You mentioned you were using a tripod? You might want to read your included material with the VR lens, I think you're supposed to turn the VR off on a tripod. I noticed a significant difference in my shots when I accidentally left my VR on while using a tripod, and it wasn't for the better! If I was mistaken about you using a tripod, skip all previous paragraph. *LOL*
     
  8. txbonds

    txbonds

    650
    Dec 10, 2005
    Florida
    I'm not saying I didn't see a difference in tonal quality, I was just questioning the "very clear" comment by the prior poster regarding the tone and color. I thought the 18-200vr did pretty good in this respect, just not with the sharpness throughout the frame of the 17-55dx.




     
  9. It would be difficult for me to put it into words (fighting a bad back and bad cold - too many meds) but I liked the 'clearness' of the 17-55 shots, the 18-200 shots seemed a little dull, didn't have that zap that the first set had, this is very noticeable to me in the trees, leaves, etc... less in buildings, smooth surfaces. Different lenses produce different results.. not a bad thing, they're just different.
     
  10. lpcd2001

    lpcd2001 Guest

    I did squint my eyes but not much to see that the A photo has the depth that the other does not have :). Probably monitor calibration could be a factor to help with the evaluation? I routinely calibrate my monitor.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
nikon 70-210 D vs nikon 55-200VR Lens Lust Mar 16, 2012
Examples of bokeh of 200VR vs 70-200VR2? Lens Lust Aug 23, 2010
80-200 AF-D + 14-24 vs 70-200VR ii Lens Lust Mar 15, 2010
70-200VR vs 80-200 AFD Lens Lust Feb 5, 2010
Sharpness: 70-200VR vs 50 1.4G Lens Lust May 28, 2009