«

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.
>
>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

I would recommend the 18-70mm AF f/3.5-4G DX lense as a walk around.
You might also, just because they are dirt cheap, want to pick up
a 50mm f/1.8 too, just for any occasion when a faster lense is
useful.

But for sports etc., a 80-200mm AF ED f/2.8 (note that there is more than
one version of the 80-200mm AF lense, and it is the ED one you want)
is the way to go.

These three lenses have distinct advantages because they are fast
and they are sharp (even wide open or at the ends of the zoom ranges).

Between those lenses you can do well for most general photography
needs.

Regardless of your choice of lenses, get a good tripod and a remote
shutter release cable.

>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!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Roy G <> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

There are decent off-brand choices to consider too. I just received the
Tokina 80-200 (D) and I really like it so far. I have yet to get out and take
any real pictures, but its build quality is nice and it appears to autofocus
accurately and pretty fast. All the test pictures I took in my yard were
quite sharp. I did some testing at several focal lengths and apetures and
they all came out as I expected. Definitely a great choice, especially if you
want to avoid the premium cost of the Nikkor equivalent. If my primary
shooting was telephoto, I may have considered the Nikkor for its reportedly
faster autofocus, but, alas, my typical shots tend to be fairly wide.

> 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.
>

Spend the money on a tripod and skip the VR for now.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Bill <> wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
>
>>Bill <> 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.

You can get the Nikkor 80-200D for < $900.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

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.
>
> 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!

How soon do you want it? With the 18-200 that's the _big_ question--unless
you luck out you are unlikely to find one in stock anywhere--right now the
estimates I'm seeing are for the end of June.

The price on the 18-200 is $750. The 18-55/55-200 combination goes for
about 355 (less if you get them as the "kit" lenses with the D50) but
neither lens is regarded as being particularly good and there's no image
stabilization and the $400 you have left over won't get you anything
particularly interesting, so the only reason to go that route would be to
save money.

If you go to the 18-70/55-200 combo then you're looking at maybe 500 for the
combo, not a whole lot less than the 18-200, and it's questionable whether
there is any gain in optical quality--the 18-70 is well thought of but it's
not pro glass either.

Neither the 18-70/55-200 nor the 18-55/55-200 combination has any real
advantage for sports photography, so that's not an issue in choosing
between them.

If you are willing to spend a bit more money, the 18-70 in combination with
the 80-200 f/2.8 ED might be a good bet--you're looking at about $1300 for
the combination. Basically what it comes down to is that to get a
significant improvement over the performance of the 18-200 you are going to
have to pay almost twice as much. Whether it's worthwhile to you only you
can answer.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

For what it is worth here is a link to my review of the Nikon 18-200VR.

http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/...pic.php?t=3033

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.
>
> 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!

If you think that you'll never use features on the D200, then you probably
are just afraid to take time to learn how to use it.

After having used my D70 for over a year, then buying a D200 , I find it
quite an inconvenience to switch back to the D70 (Similar controls as a
D50).

The HUGE convenience in the D200 is having nice little buttons on the body
that are hidden deep in the menu. Similarly, the advantage of the 18-200 is
using a lens of generally adequate quality that precludes incessant lens
changes. Quite a benefit! Coupled with a 12-24mm, this covers about
everything you'll need unless you're shooting wildlife.

If you want a faster 80-200, try a 5 year old f/2.8. I just sold one on
Ebay for about $600 in like new condition. They're out there.

--
Jimmy Greene
Santee, CA / Lake Oswego, OR
Nikon D200, D70