"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our local camera store has two of 'em, but the price is a bit higher.
I'm
not in a hurry, so I may wait. I've been scrutinizing that lens for a
while. Nice to talk to someone who has one.


Just remember it's not a "pro"

. . . nor am I.

lens, though I suspect a lot or pros
will buy one anyway. My 70-200VR is a lot like your 300mm. It's huge,
but the sharpness at 2.8 is amazing and the bokeh is beautiful. This
was shot with it for that creamy background (and the 18-200vr will not
pull this off of course)...

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/parkbaby2.jpg

But I can't carry that monster of a lens everywhere I go. This angle
makes it look more manageable than it is...

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/aagrip1.jpg

I also ordered a Tamron 90 Macro, which is an amazing portrait lens and
superior to the Nikon versions.

Interesting. Last time I chatted with my local Nikon guru, he said that
many of the newer Nikkor lenses are made by Tamron, and some other mfrs.
His claim was that only the most expensive Nikkors were made by Nikon any
more. I have a 70mm lens that I've used for portraits. It's an older Zeiss
(I have to use an adaptor to use it with my Nikon body) and its superior to
any other lens I own, except my other Zeiss (180mm) and a really old Leitz
that just sits in its case, never used.

My main reason for the 18-200 was as a lens for the boat. Remember that
a DSLR has a crop factor of 1.5, so the 18-200 actually acts like a
27-300mm. I had a Tokina 12-24 for a while...gave it away, and will
probably buy another.

Do all digital SLRs have that same factor? I wasn't aware of that.

I've got an old Minolta fisheye (4mm) that I have no use for, but wish I
could use it with my Nikon body. I can't find an adaptor for it, and would
like to sell it and buy something around 12-24 for those wide-angle shots
that I can't get with any of my current lenses. Maybe Ebay.

Max