"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

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.

Where's the sweet spot for that lens, in terms of focal length? Does it have
one?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Where's the sweet spot for that lens, in terms of focal length? Does it
have one?

Probably not down at 18mm.
I just ordered a fixed focal length wide angle lens.

I'm offering this in this thread because it's already OT, so doing it here
will make the NG less cluttered: Since Saturday, I've gotten several emails
offering to teach me how to master slot machines. If anyone's interested,
I'd be happy to copy the next one here.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:FSszg.6551

......I've gotten several emails offering to teach me how to master slot
machines. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to copy the next one here.

Beating slot machines is easy -- just stay away from them.

Alternatively, you can just toss $200 worth of quarters in the trash, and
save yourself the airfare.

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Where's the sweet spot for that lens

The trash can.

Seriously, I've got a half-ton of Nikon glass (20D, 24D, 28, 35, 50,
105MicroD, 28-80D, 80-200D), but something that advertises itself as
covering that much real estate is a JOKE.

That's what I was wondering, but since lenses can be important in
how-you-say "personal ways", I was dancing around it. I used to read Popular
Photography many years ago, and they made it pretty clear that zoom lenses
were a compromise. I guess the laws of physics haven't changed.

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

Where's the sweet spot for that lens

The trash can.

Seriously, I've got a half-ton of Nikon glass (20D, 24D, 28, 35, 50,
105MicroD, 28-80D, 80-200D), but something that advertises itself as
covering that much real estate is a JOKE.

The whole point of the lens is giving the photographer the option of
carrying a single piece of glass.

What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience? If that's
the choice someone wants to make, so be it. Millions make the same
choice in Detroit-built cars every year.

I have the nearly all-plastic 28-200 that I picked up for $200 used.
While it definitely suffers compared to a fixed focal length, it's still
quite useful.

jps

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

Where's the sweet spot for that lens

The trash can.

Seriously, I've got a half-ton of Nikon glass (20D, 24D, 28, 35, 50,
105MicroD, 28-80D, 80-200D), but something that advertises itself as
covering that much real estate is a JOKE.

The whole point of the lens is giving the photographer the option of
carrying a single piece of glass.

When needing two vastly different focal lengths and the ability to quickly
switch between them, the photographer carries two bodies, each with an
appropriate lens.

"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.

If you care so little about the quality of your pictures that you'd buy an
18-200 lens, you're not a photographer at all, you're a gadgethound with
money to burn who'd be better served with an A540.

While traveling light, I like having something that I can use to frame
an image easily rather than be fiddling with a bunch of bodies/lenses.
I've owned point and shoot digital and I don't like them. I like the
SLR body and have no problem making pretty amazing images with the
crappy zoom $200 28-200 zoom.

What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?

If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.

What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.

I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, host of Nikon and Canon
35mm, several Rollei TLRs to a Hasselblad with thousands of dollars in
glass in front of it.

I've made brilliant and crappy images with each.

The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps

Harry Krause wrote:
jps wrote:


"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.



What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?
If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.

What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.


The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps


Speaking of "pinhole" photographers...
While tramping around Mindanao
between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a
2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after
being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking
though an angular sight. but I got used to that.

I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of
digging it back out.
Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics
anymore... ?:

jps wrote:
I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, .."

BTW, you know were I can get some decent paper film for my old Brownie
6-16?

In article .com,
says...

jps wrote:
I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, .."

BTW, you know were I can get some decent paper film for my old Brownie
6-16?

Wow. It's been a while since brownies were the rage...

I actually took my first pictures on a 620 box camera with the
viewfinder on the corner of the camera.

jps

In article .com,
says...

Harry Krause wrote:
jps wrote:


"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.



What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?
If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.

What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.


The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps


Speaking of "pinhole" photographers...
While tramping around Mindanao
between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a
2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after
being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking
though an angular sight. but I got used to that.

I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of
digging it back out.
Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics
anymore... ?:

I had great luck finding bulbs for my Rollei TLRS on ebay. I realize
you're joking but I'm sure flashcubes are just as available.

jps