PDA

View Full Version : It's LLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGGG overdue but....



tim11
09-24-2007, 06:16 PM
....I will pick up my D80 tomorrow, pairing it with Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro and will pick up 'a few' more things after I get to know the camera.
Will join you guys soon in Nikon DSLR pic of the day thread.

fionndruinne
09-24-2007, 08:50 PM
Good stuff!:cool:

XaiLo
09-24-2007, 09:11 PM
Congrats tim11, see ya soon! :)

rawpaw18
09-25-2007, 04:09 AM
Man it has been a while. I am happy for you. See you on the POTD!

Rooz
09-25-2007, 04:09 AM
congrats tim. :)

jcon
09-25-2007, 12:37 PM
Congrats! A fellow Panasonic FZ user making the jump, glad to have you aboard, Tim! You wont regret it!

tim11
09-26-2007, 11:01 PM
Thanks everyone. I picked it up yesterday. After struggling to attach the lens (it took quite a while) I managed to do some shooting. Being late at night, there is nothing worth posting though.

Jason...
Pity Panasonic can't recreate the enthusiasm cause by the release of the FZ20...

fionndruinne
09-26-2007, 11:11 PM
I definitely recall my first shots; they weren't good, but hey, they were mine, out of a gosh-darned cool machine!:D

tim11
09-27-2007, 07:12 AM
RAW is amazing!!!!!!!
I know... once I get better with RAW conversion, I might be able to get much better result but this was a quick job but had it been JPG format it would have been for the RECYCLE BIN.
ISO800, F/2.8, 1/15sec. RAW

erichlund
09-27-2007, 07:39 AM
I don't know, in that portrait, the faces look a bit plasticky. I'd have gotten the D200. :)

jcon
09-27-2007, 12:13 PM
Jason...
Pity Panasonic can't recreate the enthusiasm cause by the release of the FZ20...

Aint that the truth! That sure is/was a beauty. I may buy one again someday if I can find a decent one!

Looks like youre already enjoying the DSLR world... dont look back;)

Honest Gaza
09-29-2007, 02:28 AM
Way to go Tim.....now the money spending really begins :D

K1W1
09-29-2007, 05:00 AM
RAW is amazing!!!!!!!
I know... once I get better with RAW conversion, I might be able to get much better result but this was a quick job but had it been JPG format it would have been for the RECYCLE BIN.
ISO800, F/2.8, 1/15sec. RAW

If you had waited a while you could have spent a lot more money and purchased a D300 and taken that photo at ISO6400 or you could have spent a small fortune on a 70-200 f2.8VR and taken that photo from 70 feet away! :D

Congratulations.

P.s. How did you get four kids to sit still enough for a 1/15 sec portrait?

tim11
09-30-2007, 07:36 AM
Way to go Tim.....now the money spending really begins :D

Don't worry GAZA. I won't go overboard though... The good thing about me getting into DSLR is I'm unlikely to buy a camera every year anymore; but the bad thing is I'm very likely to buy a lens or some other gear more than once a year. And as you know each item will cost more than a compact camera. :D

tim11
09-30-2007, 07:40 AM
If you had waited a while you could have spent a lot more money and purchased a D300 and taken that photo at ISO6400 or you could have spent a small fortune on a 70-200 f2.8VR and taken that photo from 70 feet away! :D

Congratulations.

P.s. How did you get four kids to sit still enough for a 1/15 sec portrait?

K1W1: I knew about the release of D300 and its high ISO capability but I was never in second thought about it, knowing it will be well over my budget. Just consider the D200 costs well over $2000 body only and D300 won't be any cheaper. I have SB800 in my list so D300 will make me lazy about learning to use the flash effectively.

The 4 plastic faced kids? The trick is to make them watch some weird British children show. LOL.

rawpaw18
09-30-2007, 11:58 AM
The 4 plastic faced kids? The trick is to make them watch some weird British children show. LOL.

That is the punishment we use on our kids too!:D

fionndruinne
09-30-2007, 03:31 PM
Tim, out of curiosity, why the Sigma 18-200mm OS, over the Nikkor version? I don't think the Sigma is likely to perform better, and isn't really much cheaper.

tim11
09-30-2007, 10:05 PM
Tim, out of curiosity, why the Sigma 18-200mm OS, over the Nikkor version? I don't think the Sigma is likely to perform better, and isn't really much cheaper.
I play with the idea of getting the Nikkor but it still means over $300 difference.

e_dawg
10-01-2007, 02:04 AM
I didn't think the difference was that big. When the Sigma was announced, its MSRP was higher than Nikon's, and they were almost the same price on the street. Now, it seems that the Sigma's street price is much lower than list, as tends to happen with half of their lenses.

Rooz
10-01-2007, 03:27 AM
have i missed something ? why are you looking at an 18-200 lens which won;t give you near the quality of the 18-50 sigma ? especially for that kinda money, those funds can be put to far better use elsewhere. an 80-200 f2.8 af-d, 50-150 sigma f2.8, macro lens, wide angle etc etc

tim11
10-01-2007, 05:11 PM
I walk around wearing the signature hoping hoping to attract comments and it does since I'm still in 2nd, 3rd and 4th mind about my next lenses.

ROOZ: when you mentioned

why are you looking at an 18-200 lens which won;t give you near the quality of the 18-50 sigma ? that refers the Sigma 18-200 alone and not the Nikkor; right? I'm happy with Sigma 18-50 indoors but I feel I need something else for outdoors for the time I can only have one lens with me. With decent zoom of course.

Rooz
10-01-2007, 07:33 PM
whats wrong with the 18-50 as your walkaround ? i think its a waste of money to buy another lens like the 18-200. alternately you could have bought the 18-200 and not bought the sigma.

anyway....as i mentioned in my last post, to me there are far better lens', (or flash), to be investing in for that sort of money. if you need the additional range there are other options which will produce far better IQ than the maxi-zooms.

erichlund
10-01-2007, 08:26 PM
whats wrong with the 18-50 as your walkaround ? i think its a waste of money to buy another lens like the 18-200. alternately you could have bought the 18-200 and not bought the sigma.

anyway....as i mentioned in my last post, to me there are far better lens', (or flash), to be investing in for that sort of money. if you need the additional range there are other options which will produce far better IQ than the maxi-zooms.

The 18-50, as you well know, is a constant f2.8. The 18-200 is, well, not. They serve entirely different purposes. The thing is, once you get used to the quality of high end glass, those compromise lenses are, well, compromised.

Still, I wouldn't have any problem taking the 18-200VR our for a day of shooting, as long as I'm not going to be using it in a way that the compromises come to the forefront. It's a good lens if you really only want to take one and leave the bag at home.

Rooz
10-01-2007, 08:48 PM
The 18-50, as you well know, is a constant f2.8. The 18-200 is, well, not. They serve entirely different purposes. The thing is, once you get used to the quality of high end glass, those compromise lenses are, well, compromised.

Still, I wouldn't have any problem taking the 18-200VR our for a day of shooting, as long as I'm not going to be using it in a way that the compromises come to the forefront. It's a good lens if you really only want to take one and leave the bag at home.

they do not serve ENTIRELY different situations at all, that's rubbish. they are both general lens'. i have owned both at the same time so i know exactly how "useful" or not they can be when owned together. since selling the 18-200 nikkor there are sometimes when i miss its flexibility and VR sure, but i would not part with any of my other "specialist" lens' just to have that convenience. maybe if it was like $250 or something i get it, but not at those price ranges.

if money is no object then maybe i can see the logic of having the luxury of the additional lens. but at that price for someone starting out in lens' and photography it doesn;t make sense at all to me. tim also seems to be heading towards more serious photography and even looking at moving to pro work if my memory serves me correctly and that case the 18-200 will not be as good as other options in the price range.

more importantly though, the sigma is a far sharper lens so to me it only makes sense to shoot with the best possible optics you can afford. then if you need the reach, get the best you can get for your money.

e_dawg
10-01-2007, 09:41 PM
Hey, if the 18-200 -- I bought mine from these guys (http://www.adorama.com), or altenatively, from here (http://www.ritzcamera.com) -- is good enough for Ken Rockwell, it's good enough for you! Remember that Nikon has never given me so much as a penny to say that (those cheap a*s bastards... everything I did for them all these years and I can't even get one free D300 from them?... err, sorry, I got distracted. Back to the 18-200). I just think that it's a really good lens that has made almost all my other lenses obsolete! If you find this piece of advice useful to you, a small donation would be appreciated so that I can keep this site up and running. Thanks!

fionndruinne
10-01-2007, 09:44 PM
Ah, but is anything really good enough for Ken Rockwell?

You know, last time Ken went shooting with his circular polarizer on, scientists noticed a lessening in global warming!

tcadwall
10-01-2007, 09:57 PM
Well, I kinda disagree Rooz.

The 18-200mm DOES serve a different purpose in my mind. It is a convenient lens to have if you need to utilize the range. I use it unless I need a "specialist" lens. I KNOW why I use it, and I know that it is the best solution for the majority of my shooting. If someone knows why it is a good lens for them, then they are fine in having it.

I am not sure if you are aware of the type of shooting I do, but it is quite boring. I try to do some hobby photography when I can, but most of my work is shooting property. I shoot homes, rooms, jewelry, furniture, computers, electronics, etc. In the matter of 10 minutes I will utilize the full range of my 18-200mm lens repeatedly. This lens is predictable, focuses quickly, and the VR is awesome. While perfect IQ is not the main objective here, I still like to make sure that my shots are good.

I also have gone on vacations where the lens has done a great job. The shots I have taken while on vacations (with this lens) have made me some money here and there.

Sure, I wish I had a 70-200mm and didn't have to rent one every once in a while. But even if I did have one, it wouldn't be on my camera most of the time. most of the time it would be the 18-200mm, because time is money, and taking the time to change lenses as often as would be required would cost me too much money.

I know most people aren't dealing with what I am dealing with, but at the same time, carrying a huge 70-200 AND a large wide zoom, and switching them as needed, just might not be the way some people want to shoot while out for fun. Not everything is about perfection. Sometimes it is nice to be able to "focus" on the actual vacation and just have a camera around your neck with a lens that will really do a decent job when you call on it.

tim11
10-01-2007, 10:02 PM
----tim also seems to be heading towards more serious photography and even looking at moving to pro work ----

YES to [more] serious photography and NO to pro work. I will tag along with a friend to wedding shots for fun and gauge the situation later. As for now, I am only a keen amateur learning to see the light. And yes money does matter a lot to me which makes each choice very hard.

Well... there is no question about Sigma 18-50 F/2.8. I'm very happy with it and have been shooting pix of the kids indoors, without flash. It can't be done with anything with smaller aperture such as both 18-200 in question here. It's perfect for for me indoors - both the aperture and zoom range. But as for outdoors it comes a little short literally.

I have read about Sigma 50-150. There are many praise for its IQ and as many negative comments regarding quality control. A bad copy makes aperture wider than F/4 like hit and miss.... Being new to lens, I'm worry I might not be able to test if I get a good copy. This report plus the thought of all rounder long zoom with VR, OS, IS etc. give me second thought about 50-150.

Anyone know how good Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200mm? If they say you get what you pay for how good is it at $350?

Thanks for your inputs.

tim11
10-01-2007, 10:10 PM
In the last few posts you guys refered to Nikkor 18-200; correct?

fionndruinne
10-01-2007, 10:14 PM
Tim, a lot of people have been using the 55-200mm VR since it came out, recently. It's a winner, and with it I think you get a little more than you pay for. Keeping in mind its limitations - it's no low-light lens - it's a great deal.

As for the 50-150mm, I've heard that most of the quality control complaints have come from the Canon version of the lens, for whatever that's worth. The Nikon version is slightly different of course, and maybe that settles the quality control issue.

tcadwall
10-01-2007, 10:26 PM
Yeah,

Sorry Tim, I was referring to the Nikkor 18-200mm VR

I can't remember where I found them, but I did read a ton of reviews, and some good comparison reviews as well. I wish I could remember where, but I had found a couple of sites that went into some comparisons at different aperture settings too. That was pretty helpful.

The Nikkor did seem to beat out the competition in performance when I was comparing reviews. The only thing that hassles me is when I am shooting downward and the zoom wants to creep on me. This won't happen too often to most people, but there are certain times when I am shooting downward into a light tent to photograph flat items and it gets to be a pain (even on a tripod when the lens wants to reframe the subject on you). Sometimes I feel the lens is soft at 200mm, but it might be 200mm and infinity focus where it is soft. Tough to say since most of the time I am very happy with the IQ but sometimes I wish it was a bit tighter.... Of course this could just be my fault as well. I have also only seen fringing(correction: CA) on hockey pucks and skates against ice, and seemed to be no more than 1 to 1.5 pixels and easily fixed in post. The barrel distortion (even though it is complex) hardly ever is noticeable, but is also easy to fix in post now days. - My short review on the lens.

The biggest drawback to the lens is the aperture limitations.

tim11
10-01-2007, 11:31 PM
I haven't been able to capture bright colours flowers. I haven't had a chance to try out RAW conversion untill now. I think I need to buy another hard drive soon.

JPG format:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/Nikon%20D80/f70912_003.jpg

Converted from RAW:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/Nikon%20D80/f70912_003nx.jpg

Rooz
10-01-2007, 11:31 PM
Well, I kinda disagree Rooz.

The 18-200mm DOES serve a different purpose in my mind. It is a convenient lens to have if you need to utilize the range. I use it unless I need a "specialist" lens. I KNOW why I use it, and I know that it is the best solution for the majority of my shooting. If someone knows why it is a good lens for them, then they are fine in having it.

I am not sure if you are aware of the type of shooting I do, but it is quite boring. I try to do some hobby photography when I can, but most of my work is shooting property. I shoot homes, rooms, jewelry, furniture, computers, electronics, etc. In the matter of 10 minutes I will utilize the full range of my 18-200mm lens repeatedly. This lens is predictable, focuses quickly, and the VR is awesome. While perfect IQ is not the main objective here, I still like to make sure that my shots are good.

I also have gone on vacations where the lens has done a great job. The shots I have taken while on vacations (with this lens) have made me some money here and there.

Sure, I wish I had a 70-200mm and didn't have to rent one every once in a while. But even if I did have one, it wouldn't be on my camera most of the time. most of the time it would be the 18-200mm, because time is money, and taking the time to change lenses as often as would be required would cost me too much money.

I know most people aren't dealing with what I am dealing with, but at the same time, carrying a huge 70-200 AND a large wide zoom, and switching them as needed, just might not be the way some people want to shoot while out for fun. Not everything is about perfection. Sometimes it is nice to be able to "focus" on the actual vacation and just have a camera around your neck with a lens that will really do a decent job when you call on it.

perhaps i didn't explain myself properly and i'm not sure we disagree too much. what i mean to say is that when bought seperately they serve different purposes sure. but certianly not together imo.

i can;t really imagine someone who is tight for money and wants to grow into a dslr getting 2 lens' of such similar focal ranges. if you want a general walkaround, then get either/ or depending on your needs. but getting both ? i can;t see the advantage in it.

if you want an "all in one" superzoom you have everything covered and accept that you suffer some IQ loss for the flexibilty and convenience. surely though, if you have your major focal lengths covered, apart from tele, with the 18-50, and you WANT the reach then get a better quality telephoto lens.

i put the question to you or anyone with the 18-200VR...if you came into some cash for another lens would you be buying the sigma 18-50mm ?

i really can;t understand that logic for someone who isn't wealthy enuf to afford those luxuries...but hey...maybe its just me.

e_dawg
10-01-2007, 11:44 PM
Tim, I think you need to crank up the colour saturation a bit... you're not quite in Ken Rockwell territory yet ;)

tim11
10-01-2007, 11:44 PM
Sigma 18-50 is a must for me; as I already explained. But the next choice maybe not all that wise; too many variables confuse the judgment. Plus the report re. Sigma QC concerned me a little. I appreciate all your inputs.

tim11
10-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Tim, I think you need to crank up the colour saturation a bit... you're not quite in Ken Rockwell territory yet ;)

I did try to turn it down instead. My eyes can't agree to over saturation. How would Ken Rockwell have it?

fionndruinne
10-01-2007, 11:56 PM
Ken Rockwell would shove a color spectrum the strength of a nuclear blast down your throat, that's how he'd have it.;)

Ken is a bit of an inside joke among Nikonians. But you know... when Ken puts a UV filter on his camera, it's said that one glimpse through the viewfinder will cure cancer!

hankbeblazin
10-02-2007, 12:05 AM
whats wrong with ken rockwell he seems to have a very unbiased opinion to me. he has nikons and canons?

fionndruinne
10-02-2007, 12:17 AM
It's not so much that he's biased one way or the other, it's that a lot of his information is ridiculously oversimplified, and his generally bombastic attitude. He's a bit of a know-it-all, who doesn't necessarily... know it all.:p

e_dawg
10-02-2007, 12:24 AM
I did try to turn it down instead. My eyes can't agree to over saturation. How would Ken Rockwell have it?

Sorry for the inside joke. Ken is known for cranking up the colour saturation on his shots. The pics of his family are a little disturbing. Everybody looks like they have orange, sunburnt, or yellow skin.

Seriously, though, the pics (JPEG especially) look good, except your saturation is through the roof! I don't know if you're using a calibrated monitor or not, but the flower petals look absolutely neon on my calibrated LCD.

Part of the problem is the red push built in to many of these cameras. In addition to making everything a bit too saturated, the reds are really strong on D40 and D80 on sRGB modes. I might use colour mode II (Adobe RGB) to mitigate this problem or just desaturate the red channel a bit during post-processing.

Here is a pic I took of a flower while on vacation in France. I think the level of colour saturation here is more natural to me:

http://www.pbase.com/e_dawg/image/84349202/original

BTW, that was taken with a point & shoot.

achuang
10-02-2007, 12:28 AM
Anyone know how good Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200mm? If they say you get what you pay for how good is it at $350?

Thanks for your inputs.

I've got the 55-200 VR, and so does r3g, K1W1, aparmley, and a few others and everything about it has been good. It's great value for money and offers performance better than the $350 price tag would suggest. It's sharp, focuses reasonably fast, and the VR is very useful. It's definitely not a lowlight action lens, but it is fine for lowlight still photography such as nature, landscape and even weddings because people are very still.

K1W1
10-02-2007, 12:35 AM
I've got the 55-200 VR, and so does r3g, K1W1, aparmley, and a few others and everything about it has been good. It's great value for money and offers performance better than the $350 price tag would suggest. It's sharp, focuses reasonably fast, and the VR is very useful. It's definitely not a lowlight action lens, but it is fine for lowlight still photography such as nature, landscape and even weddings because people are very still.

Agreed and it's even better when Teds had them on special at Aus$317.00!

fionndruinne
10-02-2007, 12:39 AM
Part of the problem is the red push built in to many of these cameras. In addition to making everything a bit too saturated, the reds are really strong on D40 and D80 on sRGB modes. I might use colour mode II (Adobe RGB) to mitigate this problem or just desaturate the red channel a bit during post-processing.

I'd definitely recommend AdobeRGB (color mode II). I use it regularly, and the amount of color information it saves makes it easy to take the photo into Lightroom and do a lot of work on individual color channels, with great results. Using the HSL feature in Lightroom (hue/saturation/luminance), I can make a blue sky look proper without a polarizer, not blown or too cyan. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I went out with my camera set to color mode III (recommended in the camera for landscapes), and while the results were vivid, when I put a photo into Lightroom to adjust the sky, the image went downhill right away. I just didn't have the freedom to ajust the colors like I did using AdobeRGB.

K1W1
10-02-2007, 12:45 AM
I just didn't have the freedom to ajust the colors like I did using AdobeRGB.

Isn't it strange how Lightroom seems to handle AdobeRGB better than other colour modes. :confused:
If Lightroom were a Microsoft product and there was a colour mode called WindowsRGB the conspiracy lawyers would already be working on the class action. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

tim11
10-02-2007, 12:48 AM
--- the pics (JPEG especially) look good, except your saturation is through the roof! I don't know if you're using a calibrated monitor or not, but the flower petals look absolutely neon on my calibrated LCD.

That JPG is straight off the camera. A quick fix from RAW make it a little more agreeable to the eyes. That's the point I'm trying to make. That pix looks nice - colours, details, everything. What kind of camera/lens used? I haven't been able to shoot like that with my Sigma 18-50 yet but the last few days had been windy.

fionndruinne
10-02-2007, 12:49 AM
Heh, indeed. I think AdobeRGB would work best with all editors, though, since it saves more color data than the other modes. It's no surprise the features in Lightroom were designed to work off that mode, though.

e_dawg
10-02-2007, 01:09 AM
Tim,

That flower pic I took was with a point and shoot Canon A710is. Shot in RAW mode and converted to TIFF in RawTherapee. Post-processed in Capture NX.

erichlund
10-02-2007, 08:05 AM
they do not serve ENTIRELY different situations at all, that's rubbish. they are both general lens'. i have owned both at the same time so i know exactly how "useful" or not they can be when owned together. since selling the 18-200 nikkor there are sometimes when i miss its flexibility and VR sure, but i would not part with any of my other "specialist" lens' just to have that convenience. maybe if it was like $250 or something i get it, but not at those price ranges.

if money is no object then maybe i can see the logic of having the luxury of the additional lens. but at that price for someone starting out in lens' and photography it doesn;t make sense at all to me. tim also seems to be heading towards more serious photography and even looking at moving to pro work if my memory serves me correctly and that case the 18-200 will not be as good as other options in the price range.

more importantly though, the sigma is a far sharper lens so to me it only makes sense to shoot with the best possible optics you can afford. then if
you need the reach, get the best you can get for your money.

Rooz, what the heck are you talking about. Compared to the 18-200, which is the ultimate general purpose lens, the 18-50 is very specialized and, I believe, far superior. It's designed into a much narrower focal length range at much higher quality (if it's not much higher quality, may I suggest the Nikkor 17-55, which is much higher quality). My whole point was that the 18-200 makes compromises to achieve the wide focal length range.

The 18-200 was the lens I ordered with my D200. It's very good at what it is designed for, a lens you can take for the day, leaving the bag and all that extra weight home. It can work in low light, so long as we're not talking action shots. It does really well in good light. It has significant distortion flaws. If I didn't have the 70-300VR, I would still carry it in my bag for the long end, but because of the 70-300VR, it sits separate from my multi-lens bag.

The 17-55 is in that multi-lens bag, because it fills a specific role in that bag. It is the lens that I use the most, the wide to short telephoto. I have other lenses for short to long telephoto, ultra wide, macro, extreme low light, and normal prime. So while the 17-55 fills a role, it is only the main member and needs a supporting cast. The 18-200, when it goes out, is the cast. Those are entirely different situations.

Rooz
10-03-2007, 12:25 AM
well, we will have to agree to disagree. i don;t see the sense in it at all. the reason the 17-55 nikkor is not the opimum walkaround lens has more to do with its size and weight rather than its focal length.

the sigma is light, small and serves as an everday lens without any issue at all. i don;t see a place for both lens' in a kit built around a budget.

erichlund
10-03-2007, 08:16 AM
well, we will have to agree to disagree. i don;t see the sense in it at all. the reason the 17-55 nikkor is not the opimum walkaround lens has more to do with its size and weight rather than its focal length.

the sigma is light, small and serves as an everday lens without any issue at all. i don;t see a place for both lens' in a kit built around a budget.

I guess we have different ideas of what makes an acceptable walk around lens. I leave the 17-55 on my D200 most of the time, because it's most often in the ideal range and the quality is tops in my bag. I don't use a strap, just carry the camera in my hand. For some people, that's too heavy. I'm not some people.

I was not indicating in any way that both belong in the budget bag, only that they are significantly different lenses and serve significantly different purposes once you have built a system of lenses. I got the 18-200 because it was a versatile starting point for my system. Now that I have other, and better, lenses, I don't use it a whole lot. But it's versatility still shines if I only want to carry one lens, so I keep it. If another person's budget is tighter, they might sell it to get other lenses to fill their system, but that's their perspective, not mine. So, I only describe why the lenses are different, and let each person decide what they need.

We also have to remember that each person's photography needs are different. For instance, while I might carry all my lenses in a sling bag for touring (Lowepro slingshot 300AW, the 100AW got too small), there are other situations when I just throw on the 35mm f2 and that's all I carry.

Rooz
10-03-2007, 04:12 PM
I guess we have different ideas of what makes an acceptable walk around lens. I leave the 17-55 on my D200 most of the time, because it's most often in the ideal range and the quality is tops in my bag.

I was not indicating in any way that both belong in the budget bag, only that they are significantly different lenses and serve significantly different purposes once you have built a system of lenses. I got the 18-200 because it was a versatile starting point for my system. Now that I have other, and better, lenses, I don't use it a whole lot. But it's versatility still shines if I only want to carry one lens, so I keep it. If another person's budget is tighter, they might sell it to get other lenses to fill their system, but that's their perspective, not mine. So, I only describe why the lenses are different, and let each person decide what they need.

We also have to remember that each person's photography needs are different. For instance, while I might carry all my lenses in a sling bag for touring (Lowepro slingshot 300AW, the 100AW got too small), there are other situations when I just throw on the 35mm f2 and that's all I carry.

well, you were in fact indicating that both belong in a budget bag becasue you are addressing tim's kit, NOT yours.

my point to tim was very simple, why get that focal range at that price when you're on a budget when he already has the 18-50. i also said he should be considering either/ or because of his budget and his money best served investing in other focal lengths to expand his kit.

you argued that they are different lens' with different purposes as if to justify that buying both lens' is a valid decision...yet now you say that the 17-55 is the ideal focal range for a walkaround lens, (which i have said from the beginning), and you barely use the 18-200.

sorry erich, doesn;t make much sense really and alot of contradiction in your posts. i think when trying to offer people advice you need to take into account the context of their situation, not yours.

K1W1
10-03-2007, 04:30 PM
i think when trying to offer people advice you need to take into account the context of their situation, not yours.


A piece of advice that should be remembered by all people answering all questions especially those questions from people on budgets wanting to buy D40's or accessories for D40's. ;);)

tim11
10-03-2007, 05:52 PM
It surely will be nice to have some lenses for indoors, some for sport shots, and top that with one for all rounder. But that means a big budget. And my budget is really stretched.... Rooz seems to remember my many posts about DSLR and lenses stretching nearly a year.

Both sides of discussion are valid, and I'm not trying to be diplomatic here. However, my budget doesn't offer the luxury of having special purpose lenses as well as a creamy 18-200 on the side. That may come much later. Thanks for the discussion and for saving me some money for more important gears.

erichlund
10-03-2007, 06:23 PM
well, you were in fact indicating that both belong in a budget bag becasue you are addressing tim's kit, NOT yours.

my point to tim was very simple, why get that focal range at that price when you're on a budget when he already has the 18-50. i also said he should be considering either/ or because of his budget and his money best served investing in other focal lengths to expand his kit.

you argued that they are different lens' with different purposes as if to justify that buying both lens' is a valid decision...yet now you say that the 17-55 is the ideal focal range for a walkaround lens, (which i have said from the beginning), and you barely use the 18-200.

You conveniently left out the entirely different situations where I consider these two lenses good for their particular situation. I consider the 17-55 good for a mixed bag with a supporting cast (and no, that does not mean that I won't use it all by its lonesome, just means that under general conditions, I want more range than it can deliver.) I consider the 18-200 a good general purpose lens if it's the only lens I'm going to carry (or all others are outside it's range of use, but I've not implied that before). I never implied in any way or form that both should be carried at the same time. I myself did, until I got my 70-300VR, but now I don't.

sorry erich, doesn;t make much sense really and alot of contradiction in your posts. i think when trying to offer people advice you need to take into account the context of their situation, not yours.

And, my name is Eric, not erich, H is my middle initial.

I have never, once, anywhere in this thread, said that Tim should get it for his bag. I'm not sure he's even looking at the Nikkor, because he has the Sigma listed in his signature. I've only discussed the qualities I find in the lens, and why I find its use different from my 17-55 f2.8. Tim can get whatever lenses he wants, EVEN if he wants to get the 18-200VR. Not my call. Never was.

I really try not to tell people what lens they should (or should not) get for this or that. I will continue to give my opinion about the qualities a particular lens has, but that's good general information for anyone. I feel that if I just give my experience with lenses I've used, that's information that others can use in their lens buying decisions. They don't have to use it.

erichlund
10-03-2007, 06:34 PM
It surely will be nice to have some lenses for indoors, some for sport shots, and top that with one for all rounder. But that means a big budget. And my budget is really stretched.... Rooz seems to remember my many posts about DSLR and lenses stretching nearly a year.

Both sides of discussion are valid, and I'm not trying to be diplomatic here. However, my budget doesn't offer the luxury of having special purpose lenses as well as a creamy 18-200 on the side. That may come much later. Thanks for the discussion and for saving me some money for more important gears.

Sorry Tim, you snuck in there while I was writing my post (below yours) and working another issue. I hope you did not take anything I said as a "you should really do this" recommendation. I'd be happy to discuss any of the lenses I've owned / used (adds 18-70 DX and 70-200 VR to my signature list). But, of course, what you choose to buy in the future depends entirely on your needs, and I think we all understand that.

Good luck with then new camera and enjoy it. I had a D70, which your D80 is the direct successor to. It was a great camera, so I suspect you find the D80 even better.

Rooz
10-03-2007, 06:52 PM
And, my name is Eric, not erich, H is my middle initial.

I have never, once, anywhere in this thread, said that Tim should get it for his bag. I'm not sure he's even looking at the Nikkor, because he has the Sigma listed in his signature. I've only discussed the qualities I find in the lens, and why I find its use different from my 17-55 f2.8. Tim can get whatever lenses he wants, EVEN if he wants to get the 18-200VR. Not my call. Never was.

I really try not to tell people what lens they should (or should not) get for this or that. I will continue to give my opinion about the qualities a particular lens has, but that's good general information for anyone. I feel that if I just give my experience with lenses I've used, that's information that others can use in their lens buying decisions. They don't have to use it.

of course tim can get whatever lens he wants. but people come here looking for advice on lens choices. i know i certianly did. how many more times could i have possiby mentioned that the purchase of BOTH of these lens' doesn't make sense. :confused:

look at your posts in the context of the discussion and then ask yourself; does it make sense for tim purchase the 18-200VR given his circumstances and the fact that he already has the sigma 18-50 ? cos after all that is all i was commenting on.

if it doesn't make sense to you then why are you arguing about it ? if it does make sense to you then i stand by what i said before...we should just agree to disagree.

herc182
10-04-2007, 10:55 AM
Come on guys. lets not argue on technicalities. This is a nikon forum. We are not animals like the canon lot :D

I suggest we settle this in the most mature method possible. One camera body one (user chosen) lens. A shoot off. Best picture wins :D :p

Bigger picture is the the OP has been satisfied by the discussion so lets leave it like that. Agreeing to disagree is a good option which never seems to work with my girlfriend (probably would work if i didnt mutter "You are wrong thought" under my breath).