Photography!

[Mandrake]

ok, I'll try again

[Mandrake]

Yep, I see it.


Dust! by Mandrake Photography, on Flickr

How can you tell if it's the sensor, lens or filter?

[TofuTurkey]

Hello camera gurus. I'm looking to get a camera package, I see some include (I) a lens with zoom lens say 18-200mm, while others (II) break those up into say 18-55, then 55-200mm. Assuming everything else is the same (e.g. VR), would you go for option I or II? I've heard that the pros for (II) are that (a) the pictures are clearer and (b) it's lighter. Then again, I'm thinking if I go for (II), I might just end up lugging the other lens around, so it might not be lighter overall. Any thoughts or opinions or experiences?

[DetlevCM]

Yep, I see it.


Dust! by Mandrake Photography, on Flickr

How can you tell if it's the sensor, lens or filter?

Dust in the lens or on the filter in front of the lens normally won't show up.

That's sensor dust

To be exact - for a Canon it would sit on the Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor I'm sure for Nikon that's the same.

[DetlevCM]

Hello camera gurus. I'm looking to get a camera package, I see some include (I) a lens with zoom lens say 18-200mm, while others (II) break those up into say 18-55, then 55-200mm. Assuming everything else is the same (e.g. VR), would you go for option I or II? I've heard that the pros for (II) are that (a) the pictures are clearer and (b) it's lighter. Then again, I'm thinking if I go for (II), I might just end up lugging the other lens around, so it might not be lighter overall. Any thoughts or opinions or experiences?

These superzooms from 18 to 200 will generally be not very good at anything - additionally you'll get distortion, most likely plenty of chroma noise and a small aperture on the long end. (6,3 or so)

3 lenses are generally always the better option when it comes to optical quality.
You can get a very nice lens comparison on here:
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com

On that note - Chromatic aberrations can become much more visible when shooting for example foliage against the sun.
i.e. definitely two lenses for me.

I guess you are looking at a Canon by the way? The 17-50mm Tamron f2.8 with or without VC is a very nice lens

[H.A.L. 9000]

I uploaded the original size to flickr....

Thanks! It makes for a great wallpaper.

[Mandrake]

Dust in the lens or on the filter in front of the lens normally won't show up.

That's sensor dust

To be exact - for a Canon it would sit on the Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor I'm sure for Nikon that's the same.

I took the rocket blower to the sensor and it's a better but not perfect. I also have a sensor cleaning pen I've used on my Oly Pen but I don't think I want to go to that yet. Don't how much I should keep trying to clean it. I also took the filter off and didn't see a difference.

[Mandrake]

Thanks! It makes for a great wallpaper.

No problem. If you want a specific size let me know, I can set it in lightroom to any size.

[H.A.L. 9000]

No problem. If you want a specific size let me know, I can set it in lightroom to any size.

Spoiler :

[Mandrake]

These superzooms from 18 to 200 will generally be not very good at anything - additionally you'll get distortion, most likely plenty of chroma noise and a small aperture on the long end. (6,3 or so)

3 lenses are generally always the better option when it comes to optical quality.
You can get a very nice lens comparison on here:
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com

On that note - Chromatic aberrations can become much more visible when shooting for example foliage against the sun.
i.e. definitely two lenses for me.

I guess you are looking at a Canon by the way? The 17-50mm Tamron f2.8 with or without VC is a very nice lens

Ken Rockwell loves the 18-200mm Nikkor, too bad not many people like Mr. Rockwell's opinions but he does run plenty of lens tests.

Hello camera gurus. I'm looking to get a camera package, I see some include (I) a lens with zoom lens say 18-200mm, while others (II) break those up into say 18-55, then 55-200mm. Assuming everything else is the same (e.g. VR), would you go for option I or II? I've heard that the pros for (II) are that (a) the pictures are clearer and (b) it's lighter. Then again, I'm thinking if I go for (II), I might just end up lugging the other lens around, so it might not be lighter overall. Any thoughts or opinions or experiences?

For a "do it all" look at the 28-300mm Nikkor which just came out. There is distortion at it's shortest and longest focal lengths but the distortion can be fixed in post processing. That lens is very versatile.

If you want to talk about what pros do, many stick with prime lenses instead of zooms.