Interesting Pro lineup!

gramps

gramps

Messages
45,339
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
Was looking at one of the Kelby Training videos - a walkabout in New York with Scott Kelby and Jay Maisel. Interestingly Scott Kelby had a D300s and was gushing about the merits of the Nikon 18-200, whilst Jay Maisel was using a D3 and gushing about the merits of the Nikon 70-300.
Now I wouldn't have thought of the 18-200 or 70-300 as being 'Pro' lenses - comments?
 
Now Im no cynic, but Scott Kelby has a big afflilation with Nikon, and a lot of people view his videos.. Most of which are probably beginners with a limited budget.

I wonder how many of these beginners go out and buy a 18-200 after watching him gush about it.
How many would do the same if he was using a 70-200??
 
I'm guessing a lot of savvy amateurs would view his videos too - Jay Maisel actually spoke against the 70-200 over the 70-300, which would seem odd if it was designed to favour Nikon.
 
Or, heaven forbid, there is another option... They like using the lenses and they get good pictures. It would beat pontificating over gear and thinking oneself "pro" because you own the top of the range gear. I mean Kelby is even using a crop camera!!!

It's pretty telling on the state of this forum really.
 
menthel said:
Or, heaven forbid, there is another option... They like using the lenses and they get good pictures. It would beat pontificating over gear and thinking oneself "pro" because you own the top of the range gear. I mean Kelby is even using a crop camera!!!

It's pretty telling on the state of this forum really.
Click to expand...

Don't think either of them have to 'prove' anything in the 'pro' stakes and I can't imagine them using anything inappropriate.
There is definitely a difference in good 'pro' glass (IMO) but is IQ more important than 'getting the pic' ... that seems to be the question raised by these two.
 
gramps said:
Don't think either of them have to 'prove' anything in the 'pro' stakes and I can't imagine them using anything inappropriate.
There is definitely a difference in good 'pro' glass (IMO) but is IQ more important than 'getting the pic' ... that seems to be the question raised by these two.
Click to expand...

The lenses will get the picture. IQ will be only in minor gradations beyond that. To me it's the picture is what matters. Then again my views on "sharpness" are also quite a lot different from a lot of people on this forum! ;)
 
Doesn't being a "pro" just mean that you do photography as a proffesion? If it gets the job done, I don't see a problem with those lenses. If you see some of the guys who work red carpet events, you would see some crop bodies and super zooms.
 
I used to have an 18-200, and it was a good sharp lens on my old D70 !!
When I moved to a D7000 it wasn't anything like as sharp though, so I P/Xed it for an 80-200 f2.8, but to be fair, there isn't a huge difference between the D70/18-200 and the D700/80-200 unless you start pixel peeping at 100% on a screen.
On a print, at normal size/viewing distance, very little, if any difference !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top