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

"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. ;-)

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

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

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

"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.

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

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. ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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