Two23 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've been thinking about this lens, off and on. I do shoot at night a lot. I also travel quite a bit. Here's a few thoughts. Yes, the lens seems to be very sharp, BUT if you aren't using a tripod my own experience is a very mediocre lens used on a tripod is likely going to be sharper than a better lens handheld. For my night shooting I always use a tripod (and about 80% of my day shots too.) I want sharpness and my own experience is the most important thing for that is a tripod. If you don't use a tripod much, I just don't think this lens is going to knock you over, especially compared to the 16-85mm VR. While that second lens my not ultimately be quite as sharp, it DOES have VR. My hunch is that if you aren't using a tripod, the VR lens will probably trump the non-VR lens. Just my own experience.
Second thing is I looked at it as a travel lens. It doesn't have much range, meaning you will need a second lens. That means more lens changing, a heavier camera bag, more fiddling with your camera. For me, it doesn't sound as good for travel because I am trying to REDUCE the number of pieces I carry, not increase it. The lens also doesn't have VR, meaning for best results I will want to carry and use a tripod. All in all, the 16-85mm VR looks like a better travel lens.
After nearly two decades of almost daily photography, using a very wide variety of gear in a very wide variety of places, I've come to think that the single most important consideration for a lens is NOT how sharp it is, but how well it fits your style and what you shoot. An obvious example: the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR is one of Nikon's best and it has excellent sharpness. But it's a poor choice for weddings. It's a poor choice for downtown street shooting. Think carefully of how you use your gear, and what you shoot. In the end that's more important--how USEFUL it will be.
Kent in SD
|