Expensive vs Plastic

[RobMitchell]

I was just cleaning out my office and about to hurl some old stuff away, I found a lens in there and thought I'd try it on the D3...

You choose, which is the expensive Nikon and which one would people dismiss as rubbish?





Both shot with the same speed and aperture
800 ISO
No edits, just conversion from RAW
reduced and sharpened in PS

And no, I'm not uploading the full size ones for pixelpeeping, web format covers probably about 90% of all digital photography so this is how the majority of images should be viewed.

[KCfoto]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

Trebs, intresting test which i see merely as a compliment for the D3.

My guess is that the first picture is taken with a lens of less quality (not really garbage) than the one used for picture two but i am not realy 100% on this. I will not disclose yet why, so others can make up their mind independently.

PS.

Is the pile in the back still to be ceaned out or are these just this months bills

[ODB]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I would say, the first one is your 'piece of rubbish', allthough the image doesn't look bad at all to me. I do not say why either.

Anyway, I hope I'm not wrong for your expensive glas

[mm]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

first has more contrast,
second has more detail.

no idea which is "best" ...

my guess: 1ste "crap", 2nd "nikon"

mm

[djurre]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

throw them both away , both ain't super , the first one is better then the 2nd one

[starsofglass]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I'd say the second one is the better one.

[edjeB]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I'd say the second one is the better one.

me too, more details

[S02]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I hope the second is the expensive one...
Less CA in the 2nd, more detail - 1st one probably shows more contrast to compensate for it's lack of sharpness.

[Peekaa]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

This is a dangereous game!

Here goes my reputation:

the first one is for me the not completely rubbish,

the second one the Nikkor.

A beer for you if I'm wrong (when you're in the La Hulpe region).

Karel

[RobMitchell]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

1st one is a Nikon AFS 24-70mm F2.8
You know, the expensive new one?

2nd one is a Nikon 35-80 F4-5.6 D
A very cheapy plastic mount lens.

Just goes to show that bigger, better, more expensive can be deceptive in the reality.

Of course, there are some situations that the cheap lens will deliver poor results, no doubt, but in this quick try-out where both lenses were pointed at the same thing and the same settings there's either no real difference, or as the majority so far suggest, the cheapo lens is in fact better.

[krisdg]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

Toch een kleine oppmerking,
de plastiek lenzen, bvb de vroegere E reeks hadden een volwaardige optica maar hadden een "plastieke constructie" zodat ze sneller slijtsporen enz vertonen. optisch is daar zeker niks mis mee.
(trouwens een goed voorbeeld waarvoor dank)

[Spanjaart]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I saw your explanation but still I was going to say the pics look quite similar but the first has better bokey.
I still have a 35-80mm in good condition so I am very happy...

[edjeB]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

auch....

[Matthias]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

I saw your explanation but still I was going to say the pics look quite similar but the first has better bokey.
I still have a 35-80mm in good condition so I am very happy...

I just read this post, but same reason why I would have said number one is the 'expensive top line' lens... the more creamy bokeh...

[Sennec]

Re: Expensive vs Plastic

It's not only IQ that counts...

Maar wat IQ betreft wint de cheapo lens in deze vergelijking wel.
T hangt er maar van af wat je belangrijk vindt aan een lens.