On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom 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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
m...

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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
John

I'm speaking in terms of 35mm cameras. Adjust in whatever way you're
supposed to for digital:

28mm
"Normal" - 50-55mm
105-135mm

You can do almost anything with those three.

If you do lots of wildlife or sports pics, something in the 300mm to 500mm
range, the decision being primarily based on what lengths you're prepared to
go to in order to properly support the lens. Doesn't matter if a lens gets
fantastic reviews for optical quality if you're not willing to put it on a
proper tripod. So, smaller might be better if you intend to hand-hold the
camera much of the time. It's sort of like picking the right handgun to
carry. "The one you're comfortable carrying as often as you want to" is the
first criterion.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:46:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
om...

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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
John

I'm speaking in terms of 35mm cameras. Adjust in whatever way you're
supposed to for digital:

28mm
"Normal" - 50-55mm
105-135mm

You can do almost anything with those three.

If you do lots of wildlife or sports pics, something in the 300mm to 500mm
range, the decision being primarily based on what lengths you're prepared to
go to in order to properly support the lens. Doesn't matter if a lens gets
fantastic reviews for optical quality if you're not willing to put it on a
proper tripod. So, smaller might be better if you intend to hand-hold the
camera much of the time. It's sort of like picking the right handgun to
carry. "The one you're comfortable carrying as often as you want to" is the
first criterion.


That would be a good argument for the 18-200mm lens. It's small, as
compared to the 70-200 I bought. The vibration resistance feature of the
lens greatly reduces the demand for a tripod, even at the longer focal
lengths.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:46:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:PYqdnV43WLvhrlPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast. com...

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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
John

I'm speaking in terms of 35mm cameras. Adjust in whatever way you're
supposed to for digital:

28mm
"Normal" - 50-55mm
105-135mm

You can do almost anything with those three.

If you do lots of wildlife or sports pics, something in the 300mm to 500mm
range, the decision being primarily based on what lengths you're prepared
to
go to in order to properly support the lens. Doesn't matter if a lens gets
fantastic reviews for optical quality if you're not willing to put it on a
proper tripod. So, smaller might be better if you intend to hand-hold the
camera much of the time. It's sort of like picking the right handgun to
carry. "The one you're comfortable carrying as often as you want to" is
the
first criterion.


That would be a good argument for the 18-200mm lens. It's small, as
compared to the 70-200 I bought. The vibration resistance feature of the
lens greatly reduces the demand for a tripod, even at the longer focal
lengths.

A tripod deals with motion. But, there is no accessory that can address
optical quality. Zoom lenses are a compromise. At some point in their
adjustable range, quality is less than at other ranges. If this were not the
case, Nikon and other manufacturers wouldn't make fixed focal length lenses.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:56:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:46:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:PYqdnV43WLvhrlPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast .com...

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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
John

I'm speaking in terms of 35mm cameras. Adjust in whatever way you're
supposed to for digital:

28mm
"Normal" - 50-55mm
105-135mm

You can do almost anything with those three.

If you do lots of wildlife or sports pics, something in the 300mm to 500mm
range, the decision being primarily based on what lengths you're prepared
to
go to in order to properly support the lens. Doesn't matter if a lens gets
fantastic reviews for optical quality if you're not willing to put it on a
proper tripod. So, smaller might be better if you intend to hand-hold the
camera much of the time. It's sort of like picking the right handgun to
carry. "The one you're comfortable carrying as often as you want to" is
the
first criterion.


That would be a good argument for the 18-200mm lens. It's small, as
compared to the 70-200 I bought. The vibration resistance feature of the
lens greatly reduces the demand for a tripod, even at the longer focal
lengths.

A tripod deals with motion. But, there is no accessory that can address
optical quality. Zoom lenses are a compromise. At some point in their
adjustable range, quality is less than at other ranges. If this were not the
case, Nikon and other manufacturers wouldn't make fixed focal length lenses.


Agreed, but since I'm not making 3'by5' blow ups of watch faces, I can get
by with the zoom. I've yet to notice any distortion, etc, caused by the
lens, but I don't blow up pictures more than about 8" by 10" (after
cropping - sometimes).
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:53 -0400, " JimH"
jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom 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.

That lens is selling for close to $1,000. I can think of better ways to
spend that kind of cash. ;-)


Which lens would you buy, Jim?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


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

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 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.

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

"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