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.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it!

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:07:44 -0400, "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.

I think I'll hold off until you compare the two and give us the results of
your comparison. Good idea.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John