On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:22:48 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the
contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master
at explaining the digital game.
I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly
disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on
some websites.
She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it
than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8
lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so
I just watch.
Eisboch
Ask her if she's interested in something like this--
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm
I could make her a deal.
--
It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds?
It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the
sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel"
lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold
the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the
strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on
cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a
big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens
If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably
get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it
is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal.
I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle
lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and
wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally
deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens.
The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor.
Approximately.
The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a
1.5 sensor. Approximately.
27-18 is nine mm, not six mm.
Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.
You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.
I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.
Harry,
I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so
you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast
70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens.
It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200
VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry.
Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a
duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a
compulsive mind can justify things.
Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling?
I find nothing wrong with overlapping focal lengths if it saves from having
to carry a second lens.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
John