Lens opinions

Started by Visionary
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Visionary

Visionary

Medical Retinologist
Verified Member
Physician
20+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Was wondering if any of you have used the new Volk Digital Wide Field or the Super 66 lenses. Am looking for first-hand comparisons to their "aged" counterparts: the 90D and 78D. Are the newer lenses really worth the hype? How about the Panretinal 2.2 vs. the traditional 20D?
 
Thanks for the reply, Andrew. Looking at the thread you listed, it seems that, other than emphasizing the Volk name, lens opinions seem to reflect personal preference and vary depending on the subspecialty. Since the Digital Wide Field is so new, I'm guessing not many people have purchased one, though I imagine it has been exhibited at conferences (e.g., ARVO) and may have been tried by some. I may bite the bullet and pick one up. It sounds like a good equivalent to the 90D, with the bonus of larger field. Those that use the Super 66 seem to really like it, and by the specs, I can see why it would be appealing. I'm on the fence regarding the 20D vs. 2.2. I'll see if anyone else chimes in. Thanks again!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Visionary said:
Thanks for the reply, Andrew. Looking at the thread you listed, it seems that, other than emphasizing the Volk name, lens opinions seem to reflect personal preference and vary depending on the subspecialty. Since the Digital Wide Field is so new, I'm guessing not many people have purchased one, though I imagine it has been exhibited at conferences (e.g., ARVO) and may have been tried by some. I may bite the bullet and pick one up. It sounds like a good equivalent to the 90D, with the bonus of larger field. Those that use the Super 66 seem to really like it, and by the specs, I can see why it would be appealing. I'm on the fence regarding the 20D vs. 2.2. I'll see if anyone else chimes in. Thanks again!
Click to expand...

I would just start out with the workhorses, a basic 20 and 90 and then tailor to your needs after that. Volk is what I have, but I never thought Nikon was bad, either.
 
Are there any disadvantages of the superfield lens vs. the traditional 90D? There doesn't appear to be any trade-off for the increased field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.