Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon Lens Choice

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon Lens Choice

 
 
hinnc@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
question what all the hoopla is about.

My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
for image quality.

I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.

Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
> on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
> never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.
>
> I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
> f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
> is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
> good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
> Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
> question what all the hoopla is about.
>
> My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
> getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
> my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
> The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
> will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
> may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
> for image quality.
>
> I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.
>
> Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!


Hi.

I would not like to advise on the purchase of 1 or 2 lenses, that is a
dilemma which everyone must answer for themselves.

You do not have a great choice in the 200 to 300 range, if you go for 2
lenses, unless you go for an 18 to 70 DX and a 2nd hand 70 or 80 to 200 D

The Current Dx 55 to 200 is rubbish.

The Current 70 to 300s are both Ok, but no more than Ok.

The 70 to 200 f2.8 VR is excellent but at a stupid price.
The 80 to 200 f2.8 is also good but is still expensive, although it seems
to be getting discounted.

For a longer focus lens, VR is excellent, and really does make a huge
difference, but the current range of real Nikons, (as against things with
Nikon labels), are all in the expensive category.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006
On 18 May 2006 15:05:42 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
> getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
> my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
> The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
> will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
> may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
> for image quality.
>
> I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


It might be valuable for some types of handheld photography when
use of a tripod wouldn't be possible. But much less valuable for
sports photography, where you generally want to use fast shutter
speeds to stop soccer players and other fast moving objects. The VR
works by making it possible to use slower shutter speeds. A camera
having a sensor allowing a couple of stops worth of higher usable
ISOs would provide the benefits of VR without the disadvantages.
Also, if most of the sports shots would be taken near the 200mm end
of the f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR lens, the aperture would be smaller,
negating some of the VR's benefit, since the required shutter speed
would have to be made even slower, and VR doesn't eliminate camera
motion, it just reduces it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
[BnH]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2006

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...

> My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
> getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
> my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
> The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
> will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
> may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
> for image quality.


Sport and every walk around lens are 2 world apart.
For sports you want long range and fast lens [f/2.8] to freeze any movement
in minimal lighting condition.
whilst VR lens is good for reducing shake in minimal lighting condition [not
necessarily freeze the object]

whilst kids soccer games are mostly on sunny days, your 18-200 might do the
job.
crank the ISO up to ISO 400 and you should get fast shutter speed even on
f/5.6 of that lens.

and while you are not shooting sport, the VR on the 18-200 as my friend say
"a masterpiece of Nikon engineering"

=bob=


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
>on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
>never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.


That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.

>I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
>f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
>is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
>good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
>Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
>question what all the hoopla is about.


I think you've already come to the same conclusion as I have. The 18-200
is pretty good for what it is - a super zoom.

It does have some problems with distortion at the wide end, and softness
at the long end, but it is a single lense with a massive zoom range. I
understand it's one of the better choices in that category, and it has
VR as well.

Having said that, I much prefer 2-3 lenses to cover the same zoom range
because optical performance can be much better.

>My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
>getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
>my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
>The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
>will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
>may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
>for image quality.


First off, sports shooting is not well suited to lenses that are not
sharp when wide open. To "freeze" the subject in motion, you need a
shutter speed of 1/250 or higher, and using a zoom that can only get
sharp images at f/8 may yield poor results unless it's a bright sunny
day. On a cloudy day, you may have to crank up the ISO to get good
shutter speeds, and that tends to produce more noise in your images
(it's all a trade-off).

For less active subjects, you can try 1/125 and see how that works for
you.

There's a reason you see sports photographers with big lenses - the big
f/2.8 aperture helps to capture more light and lets them shoot at higher
shutter values to freeze the action. These big and expensive lenses are
sharp wide open, so it's not a problem.

Having said all that, if you want to take 4x6 snaphots of the kids
playing sports, the 18-200 VR or even 70-300 ED might be good enough.
But if you want to make 8x10 or larger prints, you'll likely not be too
impressed with the image sharpness from the above lenses when used wide
open.

Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
line a bit more.

>I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


The VR can be very helpful if you're moving or shooting handheld on long
telephoto shots. It's less helpful if you're shooting sports. But you
can turn the feature off.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
> zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
> price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
> compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
> line a bit more.


Try the 80-200/2.8D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:37:15 -0400, Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
>>on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
>>never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

>
>That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
>well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
>are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.


Does the D50 and D70 have as good a continuous mode as the D200? Useful
when taking sports pictures.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
(E-Mail Removed) writes:

> I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
> on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
> never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.


This is not a stupid idea.

> I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
> f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
> is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
> good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
> Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
> question what all the hoopla is about.
>
> My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
> getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
> my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
> The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
> will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
> may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
> for image quality.


Well, I *am* starting to wonder a little; the 18-200 is by most
accounts a pretty decent lens for its extreme range, but it's
certainly not a lens I'd think of skimping on other things to be able
to afford; it's the lens you buy when you can't afford pro-grade
lenses.

> I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


Never owned one, but many people speak highly of it for some kinds of
work.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
>> zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
>> price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
>> compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
>> line a bit more.

>
>Try the 80-200/2.8D.


I'm sorry...I thought I said "really good mid-priced".

By mid-priced, I meant in the middle of top and bottom pricing, so
around the $700-900 range.

And while that lense fits the price range, it is horribly slow focusing
on sports action for an f/2.8 lense, so it does not fit my description
of being a" really good mid-priced" lense, one that could challenge the
Canon I mentioned above.

Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against Nikon, but they simply do
not have a lense to match.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2006
Don Wiss wrote:

>>>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
>>>on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
>>>never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

>>
>>That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
>>well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
>>are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.

>
>Does the D50 and D70 have as good a continuous mode as the D200? Useful
>when taking sports pictures.


No...

But since you're saving hundreds of dollars...why would you expect it be
as good?

It's close though...close enough that unless you're a dedicated sports
shooter with a $2000 zoom lense, it won't matter. And if you have that
$2000 lense, you wouldn't ask this question since you would already be
looking at the D200 or D2x or whatever higher end model.

I don't mean to be rude...well actually yes I do...why are you wasting
everyones time with silly questions? I really hate it when people ask
blatantly obvious questions, just for the hell of it.

Don't get me wrong...I don't mind if someone asks because they want to
learn - most are here to educate and/or learn. But when people post
questions that are obvious, I just can't abide them...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon lens choice for D70s R Pradeep Chandran Digital Photography 30 01-26-2007 03:26 PM
Nikon D70 wide angle lens choice Tim Digital Photography 12 12-28-2006 10:18 PM
Which choice of lens kits for Nikon D70 Jeremy Digital Photography 3 10-23-2004 07:50 AM
portrait lens choice for Nikon D70 George Digital Photography 5 09-18-2004 08:49 PM
Choice of DHCP-server? Is the "IOS-one" a good choice? Fred Cisco 1 12-11-2003 06:25 AM



Advertisments