More confirmation that if you have an critical eye you will be able to
tell the difference between the pro lens and the extremely popular "all
in one" lens. The popular "all in one" lens advantages is it is light
weight, you don't have to change lens and the average vacation
shutterbug won't be see the difference between the "all in one" and the
3 different heavy and very expensive "pro" lens it replaces.

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCF...6/18043.html#6

I have the feeling JohnH will see the difference when he is doing big
blow ups or doing some creative Artsy Fartsy stuff. Anyone who is
taking vacation shots, and printing out 4x6 or putting pics on a web
page of their vacations probably won't see the difference.

The bottom line in the lens review is with camera lens', like everything
else, there is no such thing as free lunch, but this "all in one" lens
is still one hell of a nice lens.

I still think Nikon's has a QC problem with this "All in One"
lens, I am reading too many variations in sharpness such as was
highlighted in this thread. This is to be expected when a product is
Backordered over 6 months. I think product is being shipped out the
door, that would not have gotten past QC if it was not for the Backorder
situation.

"Reginal P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...



Here is a great NG to post photography stuff to: alt.photography

JimH wrote:
"Reginal P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...


Here is a great NG to post photography stuff to: alt.photography



I appreciate your suggestion. Since many of us use our cameras on our
boats and it encourages friendly discussion among boaters and this NG
has a long history of posting photos and discussing photography I
thought it was appropriate to this NG.

"Reginal P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Reginal P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...


Here is a great NG to post photography stuff to: alt.photography



I appreciate your suggestion. Since many of us use our cameras on our
boats and it encourages friendly discussion among boaters and this NG has
a long history of posting photos and discussing photography I thought it
was appropriate to this NG.


Fair enough, although I dispute your claim of the group having a *long
history* of discussing photography and I count only 5 or 6 folks here
interested in photography.

Just offering my opinion. Life goes on. ;-)

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:17:50 -0400, "Reginal P. Smithers III"
wrote:


More confirmation that if you have an critical eye you will be able to
tell the difference between the pro lens and the extremely popular "all
in one" lens. The popular "all in one" lens advantages is it is light
weight, you don't have to change lens and the average vacation
shutterbug won't be see the difference between the "all in one" and the
3 different heavy and very expensive "pro" lens it replaces.

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCF...6/18043.html#6

I have the feeling JohnH will see the difference when he is doing big
blow ups or doing some creative Artsy Fartsy stuff. Anyone who is
taking vacation shots, and printing out 4x6 or putting pics on a web
page of their vacations probably won't see the difference.

The bottom line in the lens review is with camera lens', like everything
else, there is no such thing as free lunch, but this "all in one" lens
is still one hell of a nice lens.

I still think Nikon's has a QC problem with this "All in One"
lens, I am reading too many variations in sharpness such as was
highlighted in this thread. This is to be expected when a product is
Backordered over 6 months. I think product is being shipped out the
door, that would not have gotten past QC if it was not for the Backorder
situation.

Thanks, Reg. I guess I'll just keep my 70-200 VR lens and put up with the
added 2lbs. I appreciate the link.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day, Jim! *****
******************************************

John

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:43:26 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


Fair enough, although I dispute your claim of the group having a *long
history* of discussing photography and I count only 5 or 6 folks here
interested in photography.

Just offering my opinion. Life goes on. ;-)


But the continuous 'jack off' comments, the name-calling comments, the
'bite me' comments, and the gay comments are acceptable?

You silly rules!

--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day, Jim! *****
******************************************

John

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:43:26 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


Fair enough, although I dispute your claim of the group having a *long
history* of discussing photography and I count only 5 or 6 folks here
interested in photography.

Just offering my opinion. Life goes on. ;-)


But the continuous 'jack off' comments, the name-calling comments, the
'bite me' comments, and the gay comments are acceptable?

You silly rules!


Now, John, you know good and well that the ONLY person here who is
allowed to call childish names, issue petty insults and post off topic
without fear of reprisal is JimH! He's very good at ****ting on others
for doing exactly as he does.

Thanks, Reg. I guess I'll just keep my 70-200 VR lens and put up with the
added 2lbs. I appreciate the link.
--

John, I would hope you would make your decision on some better source than
the laughable "test" done by the original poster to the Nikonians forum. If
you read all the posts in that thread, you would see a common theme that
there was something seriously wrong with either the "tester's" technique or
his lens. The 18-200 shots of the card file he uses for his analysis are a
complete disaster, and not indicative of a number of 18-200 photos posted
later in the thread by others, or certainly of my own experience. Geez,
even Harry admitted that the boat in the Breezy Point photo was "sharp as a
tack", and I would agree. No sane person would ever try and put the 18-200
at the same level of the 70-200 in terms of optical quality or build
quality. Of course they're not at the same level of price and bulk, either.
If you really research this lens, you'll find that the vast majority of
owners are quite happy with it. Personally, I find the freedom offered by
the extended range of the lens to be quite liberating. But then I shoot
photos simply for the personal joy of it. I don't make my living with
photography, and I'm not looking to win any technical awards. So anything
that makes the experience more enjoyable is a positive. The 18-200 is
simply a delight to shoot with. Mine hasn't been off the camera since I got
it. Well worth the $692 I paid for it. I would think that lens on your
D200 would be a nearly unbeatable combination. I'll be giving the D80 a
hard look later this year.

RG wrote:
Thanks, Reg. I guess I'll just keep my 70-200 VR lens and put up with the
added 2lbs. I appreciate the link.
--

John, I would hope you would make your decision on some better source than
the laughable "test" done by the original poster to the Nikonians forum. If
you read all the posts in that thread, you would see a common theme that
there was something seriously wrong with either the "tester's" technique or
his lens. The 18-200 shots of the card file he uses for his analysis are a
complete disaster, and not indicative of a number of 18-200 photos posted
later in the thread by others, or certainly of my own experience. Geez,
even Harry admitted that the boat in the Breezy Point photo was "sharp as a
tack", and I would agree. No sane person would ever try and put the 18-200
at the same level of the 70-200 in terms of optical quality or build
quality. Of course they're not at the same level of price and bulk, either.
If you really research this lens, you'll find that the vast majority of
owners are quite happy with it. Personally, I find the freedom offered by
the extended range of the lens to be quite liberating. But then I shoot
photos simply for the personal joy of it. I don't make my living with
photography, and I'm not looking to win any technical awards. So anything
that makes the experience more enjoyable is a positive. The 18-200 is
simply a delight to shoot with. Mine hasn't been off the camera since I got
it. Well worth the $692 I paid for it. I would think that lens on your
D200 would be a nearly unbeatable combination. I'll be giving the D80 a
hard look later this year.



RG,

Your summary of the review is what I would have expect anyone to come
from reading that thread, except that the review was laughable. It
highlighted an issue I have picked up from reading numerous other
personal reviews in forums and that is the Quality Control issue. I
have read where one person has seen various degrees of sharpness using
different 18-200 lens on the exact same camera. So I really don't think
the original posters test is "laughable", I think it was a great test,
that highlighted an important issue for anyone who wants to buy this
really nice "all in one" lens. If you buy the lens and and it is soft
as a marshmallow, exchange it for another one. It will not be as sharp
as a pro lens, but it will be a nice lens. I still have my lens on
order and will not cancel my order. I will A/B photos and decide if I
want to keep it, if I don't want to keep it, I will sell it on bay and
make money. The reason I believe John will see the difference between
the lens is he likes to photograph wildlife and crop and blowup the
images, this does highlight the differences in the sharpness between a
pro lens and a really nice lens such as the 18-200. There are many
people who elect to keep both lens, for different applications.

You and I really agree 100% on the quality on 18-200 lens.