On 26/03/2011 11:01 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Given it has a 55 - 200mm VR lens, that is crap to drive up the price.
Better off with a 70-300mm as digital can do the low end without a fuss
using the regular lenses.

Might you translate that paragraph into standard English?

Are you saying VR is "crap," simply there "to drive up the price?"
If so, on what basis would you make such a statement? What does that
statement mean?

And what does "digital can do the low end without a fuss using the
regular lenses" mean?

The low end of what? Fuss about what? Are you trying to say it would be
better using a fixed focal length prime lens? What focal length? 35mm?
On a Nikon SLR crop sensor, that would be the equivalent of a 52.5 mm or
"normal" lens. It's also a $250 lens.

No, not saying VR is crap. But my not be what she wants/needs. Just
that I would rather have a 70-300mm than a 55-200mm. For others it may
be different. Buying cameras if you are a "pro" is like buying cloths,
a mine field to get it right. One size or style does not fit all.

Means most digital cameras can zoom without lens, thus a low end zoom
becomes obsolete.

Still need to know what she wants it for? Pretty hard to discuss
without knowing why it is needed.