On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:46:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
om...

I was on the phone this morning with one of my friendly New York camera
sellers to order some stuff and I jokingly asked about the Nikon 18-200
mm
lens that almost everyone seems so hot to trot to overpay for...and he
said they have 2,500 on order, but don't expect to see any for at least
four months.

Amazing.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
John

I'm speaking in terms of 35mm cameras. Adjust in whatever way you're
supposed to for digital:

28mm
"Normal" - 50-55mm
105-135mm

You can do almost anything with those three.

If you do lots of wildlife or sports pics, something in the 300mm to 500mm
range, the decision being primarily based on what lengths you're prepared to
go to in order to properly support the lens. Doesn't matter if a lens gets
fantastic reviews for optical quality if you're not willing to put it on a
proper tripod. So, smaller might be better if you intend to hand-hold the
camera much of the time. It's sort of like picking the right handgun to
carry. "The one you're comfortable carrying as often as you want to" is the
first criterion.


That would be a good argument for the 18-200mm lens. It's small, as
compared to the 70-200 I bought. The vibration resistance feature of the
lens greatly reduces the demand for a tripod, even at the longer focal
lengths.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John