Could somebody please explain me why can´t I achieve same results with cheaper lens? First the question: this is a 3.5 maximum aperture lens, why can´t I achieve the same results with my 18 - 105 kit lens with the same maximum aperture? I have read some stuff, and I own a D90 with a the 18 105 kit lens. I understand is a cheap lens. I also own a 50mm 1.8 and can really see the difference, but I would say it is only due to the maximum aperture of the 50mm, which is much wider than the kit lens. I know of course this lens offered here (the 10-24 mm) is much better at 18mm than the kit lens I have at the same distance. But why again if the aperture is the same in both lenses? what else is there to compare? Thanx Miguel
Think blu-ray vs dvd, or with a kit lens, maybe even VHS. You get what you pay for. The resolution on professional lens is better due to better glass. Also, you almost never see a pro use an "all in one lens", one that tries to do too much. For example, an 18-200mm is fun to carry around, but to get amazing sharp images at all focal lengths is impossible. There are compromises. I shoot with a 17-55mm 2.8, a 70-200mm 2.8, a 50mm f1.4, a 10.5 2.8, and just got a used 12-24mm f4 Nikkor, all superb lenses.
Those that say that their all in one produces great images are those that are thrilled with their DVD lens, and have never seen a Blu-Ray. (Funny, I own a DVD player, but in photography I want the sharpest possible images)
The 50mm f1.8 in both Canon and Nikon are a MUST for any photographer, razor sharp and super cheap.
It's not the maximum aperture that makes for a better lens, it's the fact that normally, the fast aperture lens use better glass, and to create a lens that is sharp at a larger aperture requires better glass, and better construction and design.
Because a 10mm focal length lens is different from an 18mm focal length lens. Aperture, while important, is simply how much light the lens can let in (it affects depth of field as well); it has nothing to do with the angle and field of view of the lens. This lens and your lens should look very similar when they are both zoomed to the same focal lengths (18-24mm, the only focal lengths where they overlap). If you buy this lens and only use it from 18-24mm you are wasting your money. The reason people buy this lens for its extremely wide focal lengths (10-14mm). They give a perspective that cannot be gained in any other way, especially on DX. Few lenses get this wide and even less get this wide on DX. This is the only lens from Nikon that gets this wide on DX. That's why it's so expensive. Despite what someone else said, this is not a pro lens. I'm not sure any of the DX lenses are pro lenses. It is very much consumer grade quality; it has cheaper construction and more distortion. The Nikon 12-24mm is semi-pro (better, more durable construction) and is accordingly more expensive. But this one has a wider angle of view (shorter focal length), and that's what will be key to most folks. Just be careful with it and the distortion can be corrected with software.
non professional here!i am so confused by some of the pro's here ! so someone please tell me,will it work on my nikon D 60, Then, for a amature-beginner- training pants guy, how will this do for real estate, mountains, gardens, charging grizzly, kidds christmas with sants, high school photos of the kids,, antique autos, the " Hoss" an buggy, does anyone get my ideas, there is two guys on the reviewsthat sound incredibaly smart, good show, i so want to get this lens, BUT ? J.R. Massachusetts
In my experience, you'll get very much the same pic with the 10-24 between 18-24mm as you would with the 18-105. That's one reason I sold it. The 10-24 should be shot at 10mm, which is why you're buying it in the first place and why it costs so much (Just my opinion of course). http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HCPRMG89GYZO/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0026FCKC8&nodeID=502394&tag=&linkCode=