QUOTE(jchue73 @ Sep 5 2011, 04:21 AM)
Agreed. Actually, the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 is heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8.
My guess... Photojournalism?
Oh? I didn't realized that but that were based on my hands-on handling. Tried the AFS 80-200mm and 70-200mm VRII side by side, the 80-200mm seems comfortably light for me while 70-200mm have a heavy middle. Mounted on D300 with battery grip as well as mounted on a D3.
14-24mm were made specially for fullframers only. Yes, not many people shoot at wide open as distortion are obvious to naked eye but with Photoshop, you can just correct the distortion. Tried this lens, heavy and need extra care on the front glass. Easy to have any finger poke into it

It can be used for landscape and best is to shoot at 15mm. Comfortable in view for me on the finishing shot.
Added on September 5, 2011, 10:45 amQUOTE(tatagal @ Sep 5 2011, 09:53 AM)
Then is it mean it is better to choose 18-55 for the quality then? How about this compare with 18-105?
Shorter focal, lesser light loss that affect the color and contrast as well as sharpness. Take a look at 70-300mm. Image IQ goes yummy from 70-200mm and starts to degrade from 250mm onwards.
The 18-55mm is a standard zoom, it does have its IQ for its price but does come with a few flaws which will not affect much on actual shooting. 18-105mm on the other hand is a walk around lens. For its focal length, you wont suffer much of light loss compared to the 18-200mm.
Depends on the focal length you want to be on and the purpose of it, no matter 18-55mm, 18-105mm or 18-200mm and so on, each have its own cons and pros since they are used for different purpose. For start, 18-105mm and 18-200mm can be consider all in one lens purpose. 28-300mm is one of that as well. If you are a starter and want the extra length, 18-105 is a good start. If you are a street shooter, the 18-55mm is a nice sized lens which won't freak out strangers.
This post has been edited by onscreen: Sep 5 2011, 10:45 AM