For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 08:03:40 -0700, "JimH" wrote:


I wouldn't buy any lens John. My little digital camera works just
fine for me. ;-)
That's super!


--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day! *****
******************************************

John
JohnH,

Here are some unbiased reviews from numerous photographers, covering
a broad range of skill levels, and links to to their photos.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...f_ed_afs_dx_vr

Based upon what I have read here, it appears to be a nice lens to
have when you want a light weight lens, but it is not designed to
replace your fast 2.8 tele-tank, any prime lens, or any of the
smaller range zoom lens. It is a lens you can put on your SLR and
forget about changing lens or carrying around your camera bag. You
will take some nice photos, but don't expect it to compete against
a prime lens or a pro quality smaller range zoom.

Harry said something about the quality being similar to a $300-$350
lens, and that is probably a fair statement, but it would take 2
$300-$350 lens to do the job of this one lens, so it is priced about
right. Will I keep my 18-200mm VR lens when it finally arrives or
sell it on Ebay for a profit? I am beginning to think I really
won't be happy with this lens, but who knows.


Hey, it is a fine lens if it fits in with what you want and your
patterns of use. I haven't seen photos that indicate it is any better
optically than third party 11-1 zoom, although I would assume the
Nikon build quality is a bit better than Sigma or Tamron.

My objections to the lens are as follows:

1. It is too slow, especially at the longer focal lengths. I prefer
shooting at the lower ISO numbers (100-200) with digital cameras, and
I frequently shoot when the outdoor lighting is not bright and sunny.

2. It is not going to be as good optically as a good fixed focal
length lens. I have a really nice 35mm F2 Nikkor that works on film
Nikons as a sharp moderate wide angle or as the equivalent of a 52mm
"standard" lens on a typical digital SLR. The zoom is not going to
produce the same optical quality as the 35mm F2 in low light or
probably in any sort of light. Remember that by opening up my lens, I
can stay with slower film or lower ISOs.

3. With film cameras, I get along very nicely with my 35mm F2 and a
105 F2.5 on a Nikon, and with a 50mm Summicron F2 on my ancient Leica
M3. with a Nikon digital, the 35mm F2 and the new Sigma 70mm F2.8,
which will be the equal in focal length of 105mm. And again, these
two lenses are fast, compared to the zooms.

If I am just carrying around a digital camera, one lens is mounted
and the other is in a soft lens bag in my pocket. I've been messing
with Nikon mounted lenses for decades, and can change from one to
another pretty fast. Rarely necessary, though.

Which is not to say I would avoid teh Nikkon 18-200. But not for $700.
Its optics aren't worth $700.



Did you read the reviews in the link I posted? There were some
complaints that go beyond the ones you mentioned. I am thinking their
backorder situation, might have put pressure on QC vs Quantity out the
door.

The two lens that look good to me now a

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor

the one you and numerous others have suggested:

Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX Autofocus









If you judge the nikon 18-200 as a $350 lens with VR, it's a bargain.
But at $700 plus a premium, eh...

The best buy in a lens was a 50mm 1.8 prime I purchased for $100 +

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...37&cat=1&grp=5

The lens is sharp, fast and takes great photos. Everyone gives it a 5
star rating, even though it is a steal at $110 or so.

The more I think about it between the telephoto which is a very nice
lens, the fast 50mm, the next quality lens I should get it a wide angle.
The best part is B&H is just a click away.

For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
 

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:46:07 -0400, "Reginal P. Smithers III"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 08:03:40 -0700, "JimH" wrote:


I wouldn't buy any lens John. My little digital camera works just
fine for me. ;-)

That's super!


--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day! *****
******************************************

John

JohnH,

Here are some unbiased reviews from numerous photographers, covering a
broad range of skill levels, and links to to their photos.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...f_ed_afs_dx_vr

Based upon what I have read here, it appears to be a nice lens to have
when you want a light weight lens, but it is not designed to replace
your fast 2.8 tele-tank, any prime lens, or any of the smaller range
zoom lens. It is a lens you can put on your SLR and forget about
changing lens or carrying around your camera bag. You will take some
nice photos, but don't expect it to compete against a prime lens or a
pro quality smaller range zoom.

Harry said something about the quality being similar to a $300-$350
lens, and that is probably a fair statement, but it would take 2
$300-$350 lens to do the job of this one lens, so it is priced about
right. Will I keep my 18-200mm VR lens when it finally arrives or sell
it on Ebay for a profit? I am beginning to think I really won't be
happy with this lens, but who knows.

Just don't make 8" x 10" blowups of dimes, and I'll bet you'll love it.
Hell, it may even do a good job on a dime!

No, I'll keep the big lens, but I'd like to have the small one for trips.
I'm thinking of going to Sturgis with my brother next year, and that lens
would fit nicely on the motorcycle.

RG's pictures, over there, look fine. I cropped one and blew it up, and it
still looked great. I think I could live with the lens.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


RG's pictures, over there, look fine. I cropped one and blew it up, and it
still looked great. I think I could live with the lens.


I'd buy it simply after looking at the pics he posted taken with it. I
don't know squat about lenses but they sure were impressive.

Eisboch