New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

anyone have any experience with this lens and any thoughts on using it
as a Kit lens on a D-80.

TIA

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-427F25.10453804112006@nntp0.pdx.net...
> anyone have any experience with this lens and any thoughts on using
> it
> as a Kit lens on a D-80.


I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.

I played with it briefly in the store though with some sample shots
and compared it to the 18-70. I think they're close for sharpness.
It's sharp enough to use wide open, but it's obviously better stopped
down. And perhaps more CA in the 18-135. I also liked the contrast a
bit better in the 18-70.

It also lacks a true AF-S Silent Wave Motor (no full-time manual
override) but it's still fairly quick to focus. It has the advantage
of a longer zoom range to effectively cover the angle of view for a
28-200 on a full frame camera, which would appeal to users who don't
want to swap lenses very much.

I recently bought the Nikon D80 and opted for an 18-70 instead of the
18-135 mostly due to cost - I got a mint condition 18-70 used for $100
from a friend and couldn't turn it down. I also prefer the AF-S motor
in the 18-70, but if you're not concerned with that, then the 18-135
is probably a decent choice. A better lense is always nicer, but for
the price I don't think you would be disappointed.

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

Bill wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.


It's *lens*, Bill, and in spite of arcane usage, it's a bit odd for you
to persist in this. Your old Teach was wrong.

--
john mcwilliams

We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K. now....

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

In article <2sudnZn0y_R6atHYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@golden.net>,
"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote:

> "Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
> news:Mencken-427F25.10453804112006@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > anyone have any experience with this lens and any thoughts on using
> > it
> > as a Kit lens on a D-80.
>
>
> I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.

Thats what I have found, thus my original question.

Now let me ask another question, obviously I and others are in the
18-200 quandry. A good review, but some other disquieting info from
users. My SIL is returning his 18-200 because of a lot of vertical VR
problem resulting in blurred pictures.

The question, with a 10 MP camera that produces pictures that can be
cropped and still get large prints, is there an advantage of 200 over
135? I can get the 200 effect with the 135.

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RKCdnVp-ddyAk9DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill wrote:
>>
>> I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.
>
>
> It's *lens*, Bill, and in spite of arcane usage, it's a bit odd for you to
> persist in this. Your old Teach was wrong.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
>
> We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K. now....

John, you should probably capitalise your name otherwise some could possibly
think you are an ignorant anal idiot.

HTH

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message news:Mencken

>> > anyone have any experience with this lens and any thoughts on
>> > using
>> > it as a Kit lens on a D-80.
>
> Now let me ask another question, obviously I and others are in the
> 18-200 quandry. A good review, but some other disquieting info from
> users. My SIL is returning his 18-200 because of a lot of vertical
> VR
> problem resulting in blurred pictures.

I've only noticed a few complaints online, but I haven't been
following the 18-200 VR lately. A friend has one and likes it, and has
yet to mention any similar issue. I'll ask him to put it through some
portrait shots and see if it wavers.

If it does have an issue, I wonder if it's the same problem Canon had
with their 70-300 IS model that didn't work well in portrait
orientation. If so, perhaps it was limited to early models since my
friends lense was bought rather recently. Or maybe just a batch of
lemons.

> The question, with a 10 MP camera that produces pictures that can be
> cropped and still get large prints, is there an advantage of 200
> over
> 135? I can get the 200 effect with the 135.

Yes and no. Obviously the angle of view is similar to 200mm on a
cropped camera at 135mm, but it doesn't offer the same reach as a
200mm. Personally, I would much rather have the image I want at full
size over a forced crop because I don't have the lense I need to do
the job.

Bigger and more important questions are, do you want/need VR?
Do you want/need autofocus with full-time manual override?
Are you planing on buying more lenses or just want one super zoom?

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

Pete D wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RKCdnVp-ddyAk9DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Bill wrote:
>>> I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.
>>
>> It's *lens*, Bill, and in spite of arcane usage, it's a bit odd for you to
>> persist in this. Your old Teach was wrong.
>>
>> --
>> john mcwilliams
>>
>> We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K. now....
>
> John, you should probably capitalise your name otherwise some could possibly
> think you are an ignorant anal idiot.

Actually, whether I do so, or not, some will....

It's a rough way I classify responses, so I know how serious I was when
I wrote it. I reserve "lsmft" to kooks, spam, x-posts and pests.
Properly capped when it's a reply to something on topic and that I care
about at least somewhat.

But, bless you for the kind observation....

--
john mcwilliams

Re: New Nikkor 18-135 Lens
 

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:P7CdnS2ZVcRh6tPYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Pete D wrote:
> > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:RKCdnVp-ddyAk9DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> I don't think anyone has a full review of the lense online yet.
> >>
> >> It's *lens*, Bill, and in spite of arcane usage, it's a bit odd for you
to
> >> persist in this. Your old Teach was wrong.
> >>
> >> --
> >> john mcwilliams
> >>
> >> We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K.
now....
> >
> > John, you should probably capitalise your name otherwise some could
possibly
> > think you are an ignorant anal idiot.
>
> Actually, whether I do so, or not, some will....
>
> It's a rough way I classify responses, so I know how serious I was when
> I wrote it. I reserve "lsmft" to kooks, spam, x-posts and pests.
> Properly capped when it's a reply to something on topic and that I care
> about at least somewhat.
>
> But, bless you for the kind observation....

<guffaw!>

And touché.

Neil