On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

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.

Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?


I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle,
normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a
lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being
able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are
contemporaries.

For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good
light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or
tripod.

Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long,
heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own.

Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the
resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in
decent light.

You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once
you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference.
You need to show us some of the non-tripod pictures you've taken at 300mm.
I'll agree the owl picture wasn't too bad!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John