Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gary Seven, Apr 29, 2007.

  1. Gary Seven

    Gary Seven Guest

    Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
    about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
    or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.

    I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
    Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    (macro?) shots.

    So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
    a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
    will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
    on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.

    Thoughts anyone? TIA.

    G7
     
    Gary Seven, Apr 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gary Seven

    Just D Guest

    Gary,

    I bought the D80 basic set with 2 kit lenses in December last year - 18-55
    and 55-200. These kit lenses are very convenient. I will definitely buy
    something else, probably 18-200VR, its price is going down and I'm expecting
    it to be very acceptable pretty soon. I also bought couple close-up lenses
    2X and 3X as well as couple filters. I got a ring allowing me to use 58mm
    Wide lense derived from my Canon GL2 camcorder. It works more or less
    acceptable excluding some vinieting in the corners. I also bought two
    remotes, wired and IR, very convenient devices!

    If you want to run through a quick review/advice just visit
    www.kenrockwell.com - this guy publishes his new experience as soon as he
    gets a new device, lense, etc.

    Just D.
     
    Just D, Apr 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gary Seven wrote:
    []
    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I
    > assume a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get
    > the feeling I will need two, but simply don't know which way to go
    > here. Of course, my budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop
    > down another $2000 in glass on top of the $900 I will be spending on
    > the body.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? TIA.
    >
    > G7


    In the long run, you will probably spend that $2000 and far more.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 29, 2007
    #3
  4. Hi Gary,

    You will be more than pleased with the 18-200VR, if you get it you do
    not need the kit lenses at all. However if you plan doing landscapes and
    macro photography I would go for two additional lenses, in total would
    be:

    - 18-200VR is your walkaround lens of choice and family photographing etc.
    If you go for this one you do not need kit ones, it is really lightweight
    and
    the zoom range is very convenient.

    - 12-24mm f/4 for landscapes since the 18-200 is not really a wide angle.
    I personally do not like the slight distorsion of the Nikkor 12-24mm but
    I think
    it is the one for the job.

    - Proper macro lenses are very expensive and I have read that macro filters
    do not
    really match the performance. Since I pressume you want macro photography
    for static lifeless subjects where you can get as close as you want, why
    not
    using a prime super fast super cheap lens like the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4? I
    would
    be curious about responses on using this lens as macro. One great
    advantage
    is that because it is very fast you will blur backgrounds as much as you
    want
    and get good results even in dim lighting conditions.

    HTH,

    Regards,
    Giovanni
     
    Giovanni Azua, Apr 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Gary Seven

    george Guest

    "Gary Seven" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am
    > thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either
    > for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat
    > (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.
    >
    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I
    > assume
    > a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling
    > I
    > will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    > budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in
    > glass
    > on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? TIA.
    >
    > G7
    >


    A real "sleeper" of a lens, is the 28-105mm. It is incredibly sharp, covers
    most people's most often used range, has nice bokeh, and has a good macro
    mode and even better is that it is about $250 US, has no queue of people
    waiting to pounce on every one that becomes available, and no battery
    draining VR mode (nor does it "need" one). I suggest you go to
    www.dpreview.com and search on 28-105mm and see the sample shots people have
    posted. It is a very impressive bargain Nikon lens.

    George
     
    george, Apr 29, 2007
    #5
  6. george wrote:

    > A real "sleeper" of a lens, is the 28-105mm. It is incredibly sharp,
    > covers most people's most often used range, has nice bokeh, and has a
    > good macro mode and even better is that it is about $250 US, has no
    > queue of people waiting to pounce on every one that becomes
    > available, and no battery draining VR mode (nor does it "need" one).
    > I suggest you go to www.dpreview.com and search on 28-105mm and see
    > the sample shots people have posted. It is a very impressive bargain
    > Nikon lens.


    Good call on this lens. It's a bit slow and the front rotates which makes
    it a bit of a pain under some situations, but an overall excellent lens.
    It's definitely the 18-200mm VR killer for a third of the price. I've got a
    lot a use out of mine back in the day.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Apr 29, 2007
    #6
  7. Gary Seven

    Yoshi Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:anZYh.8626$...

    > In the long run, you will probably spend that $2000 and far more.
    >
    > David


    Not everyone is a compulsive gearhead.
     
    Yoshi, Apr 29, 2007
    #7
  8. "Gary Seven" <> wrote in message news:...

    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder.


    The D80 is an excellent choice for those reasons (finally a really
    good viewfinder again in an affordable Nikon!) plus well laid
    out controls. If it would meter easily with my many manual-focus
    lenses (the more expensive D200 does...), I would have one
    immediately.

    > I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.


    I was surprised by most of the suggestions - with most leaning
    more toward convenience than quality. If you want fairly inexpensive
    convenience, get the 18-70mm Nikkor - it will do pretty much
    everything you mention, and do it fairly well (27mm-105mm
    equivalent in 35mm terms). Add a 60mm f2.8 (90mm) macro for
    the highest quality macro work if you want. If you get that one,
    you could skip the zoom and get higher quality and greater speed
    with the 35mm f2 (52mm equivalent) and maybe a 20mm f2.8
    for wide angle (30mm equivalent). This set with maybe a 50mm
    f1.8 (75mm equivalent, fine, and cheap) or 85mm f1.8 (or 127mm
    equivalent) covers all your bases very sharply, and with fast lenses
    that can be used wide open (except the 20mm). For a "longish"
    zoom, the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (36-127mm equivalent) rather
    good compared with most others in its range, and it could be
    combined with the Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm, if you
    want super wide and can take a hit in image quality...

    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
    > a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
    > will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    > budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
    > on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.


    If you are not looking for the very highest quality, but good
    useful range with a convenient, affordable lens, go with the
    18-70mm - and maybe add some non-zooms later...
    --
    David Ruether

    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Apr 29, 2007
    #8
  9. Gary Seven wrote:
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much
    > better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little
    > "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss
    > though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body.
    > There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my
    > two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style
    > photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along
    > those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very
    > close-up (macro?) shots.


    Get the 18-135mm kit lens. You can't beat the price and for a kit lens it is
    a _very_ good lens, see
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/993/cat/13 for a
    review.

    It will cover all your needs except for the macro photos. For those look at
    macro lens line from Sigma, maybe the 70mm or 105mm. For third-party lenses
    they are surprisingly good, pretty much in the same ballpark as
    manufacturers lenses, see http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/30.
    If you can afford it, then the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro will outclass any
    other macro lens, see
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12/date/1129408622.
    But it is _much_ more expensive.

    Stay away from the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro, it doesn't seem to do too
    well, even the Sigma 50mm got a better picture quality.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 29, 2007
    #9
  10. Gary Seven

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-04-29 07:02:06 -0700, "Jürgen Exner" <> said:

    > Gary Seven wrote:
    >> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much
    >> better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little
    >> "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss
    >> though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body.
    >> There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my
    >> two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style
    >> photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along
    >> those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    >> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very
    >> close-up (macro?) shots.

    >
    > Get the 18-135mm kit lens. You can't beat the price and for a kit lens it is
    > a _very_ good lens, see
    > http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/993/cat/13 for a
    > review.
    >
    > It will cover all your needs except for the macro photos. For those look at
    > macro lens line from Sigma, maybe the 70mm or 105mm. For third-party lenses
    > they are surprisingly good, pretty much in the same ballpark as
    > manufacturers lenses, see http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/30.
    > If you can afford it, then the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro will outclass any
    > other macro lens, see
    > http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12/date/1129408622.

    But
    >
    > it is _much_ more expensive.
    >
    > Stay away from the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro, it doesn't seem to do too
    > well, even the Sigma 50mm got a better picture quality.
    >
    > jue


    Mostly baloney, especially the bit about macro.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 29, 2007
    #10
  11. Gary Seven

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-04-29 01:39:07 -0700, "Gary Seven" <> said:

    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.
    >
    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
    > a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
    > will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    > budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
    > on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? TIA.
    >
    > G7


    I think you have to first ask yourself exactly what you plan on doing the most.

    I also like the 18-200mm VR lens. It focuses closely enough for light
    macro work. It has enough telephoto to bring the mountains closer for
    those background mountain shots. It has decent mid-range zoom for
    portraits. It goes wide enough for landscapes.

    The 18-135mm lens is neither fish nor fowl. Thom Hogan is probably the
    most respected reviewer of Nikkor lenses. Check out his review of the
    18-135mm lens here:

    http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm

    Thom does not show you a lot of charts or test patterns in his reviews.
    Instead, he talks about lenses and how they handle and perform in the
    real world of photography. A lens may be great at shooting test
    patterns, but if it is so awkward that it stays in the bag all the
    time, what good is it?
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 29, 2007
    #11
  12. Gary Seven

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 29, 4:39 am, "Gary Seven" <> wrote:
    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.
    >
    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
    > a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
    > will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    > budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
    > on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? TIA.
    >
    > G7


    Get an 18-135mm ED DX and some screw-on macro lenses for the front.
    $350 for that grouping.
     
    RichA, Apr 29, 2007
    #12
  13. C J Campbell wrote:
    > "Jürgen Exner" said:
    >> Get the 18-135mm kit lens. [...]
    >> except for the macro photos. For those
    >> look at macro lens line from Sigma, [...] If you can afford
    >> it, then the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro will outclass any other
    >> macro lens, [...] But it is _much_ more expensive.
    >>
    >> Stay away from the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro,[...]

    >
    > Mostly baloney, especially the bit about macro.


    I can easily see that different people have different opinions about which
    lenses are suitable or "best", just like with everything else in life.

    However I would honestly appreciate if you could elaborate a bit on why feel
    my comments were baloney. I believe they are substantiated by actual test
    results and therefore I have a hard time seeing why you characterize them as
    such.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 29, 2007
    #13
  14. Gary Seven

    babaloo Guest

    For most amateurs the 18-200 lenses by Nikon, Sigma and Tamron are
    reasonable performers.
    Any of these lenses outperform the Nikon 55-200 in that focal range. However
    Nikon did recently add IS to their otherwise execrable 55-200.
    The Nikon 18-200 is the most desirable because of image stabilization but it
    costs twice as much as the others, is difficult to find, and its optical
    performance otherwise is not much different regardless of what Nikon
    partisans say. These lenses all distort at the wide end, which may not be
    noticeable to some users, but the distortion is correctable in Photoshop. I
    love Nikon but you pay a premium for the name tag that does not consistently
    translate into performance that justifies the price for the purposes for
    which the lens will actually be used.
    Sigma announced a new IS 18-200 last September but never actually produced
    the lens. The last time I checked they had not given retailers a release
    date and they had not said they were not going to make the lens. Vaporware
    marketing as in the computer industry. Check out the Adorama web site on
    this lens.
    A wider angle lens is desirable. Again the Nikon 12-24 is more costly than
    the Tokina but the Tokina may be better optically. In fact the Nikon and the
    Tokina may share more than an identical focal length and fixed f-stop.
    Lenses longer than 200mm (equal to 350mm in 35mm film SLRs) for dSLRs are
    infrequently used by amateurs in the real world. If you don't know why you
    need one you do not need one.
     
    babaloo, Apr 29, 2007
    #14
  15. C J Campbell wrote:

    > I also like the 18-200mm VR lens. It focuses closely enough for light
    > macro work. It has enough telephoto to bring the mountains closer for
    > those background mountain shots. It has decent mid-range zoom for
    > portraits. It goes wide enough for landscapes.


    TOTAL AND UTTER BULLSHIT!

    The 18-200mm VR does *NOT* do macro it does close-up work. It does have a
    decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would have been nice for it to
    have the same as a 200mm lens. The biggest problem with this lens is its
    poor build quality and poor light gathering properties. The lens creep and
    many complaints of the front element working its way loose and falling off
    are totally unacceptable. And what compounds the problem is the need to
    have a lot of light to wake this lens up. I find it near impossible to
    shoot below ISO 400 and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk around
    lens in principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if you are
    accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what you get.
    Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these dogs to offset the
    cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a rip-off and Nikon should be
    ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool that paid more than $750 MSRP, though
    I'm glad they do.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Apr 29, 2007
    #15
  16. Jürgen Exner wrote:

    >> Mostly baloney, especially the bit about macro.

    >
    > I can easily see that different people have different opinions about
    > which lenses are suitable or "best", just like with everything else
    > in life.
    > However I would honestly appreciate if you could elaborate a bit on
    > why feel my comments were baloney. I believe they are substantiated
    > by actual test results and therefore I have a hard time seeing why
    > you characterize them as such.


    I think CJ's problem is he's never had the lens and is talking from his ass
    as usual. The 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor is a stunning lens and a great performer.
    The only problem for most people is the very short working distance for 1:1
    macro. This is why I opted to keep the 105/2.8 AF-D and 105/2.8 VR as they
    give your better working distance for more creative lighting techniques.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Apr 29, 2007
    #16
  17. Gary Seven wrote:
    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.


    The 18-70mm kit lens gets good marks. I've got one (purchased
    separately used, though), and it indeed works well in general. I had
    some flare problems with it, and it's not overall as good as the
    17-55/2.8 that I eventually upgraded to, but it's quite decent.

    So, for a D80, and on a budget, I'd suggest starting there.

    You're probably eventually going to want a real "macro" lens; for
    serious closeups, zooms with "macro mode" just don't cut it. The 60mm
    macro is fairly cheap, and long enough focal length for most purposes on
    a 1.5x crop body like the D80.

    I'd suggest that as a good starting point, and then see. You might want
    either wider, or longer, or both; after you have more experience using
    those, you'll be in a better position to choose what the most valuable
    thing to add next will be. (I'd guess an 80-200 of some sort; but you
    probably aren't me, so who knows what you'll want?)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 29, 2007
    #17
  18. Gary Seven

    Just D Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz"
    > The 18-200mm VR
    > It does have a decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would
    > have been nice for it to have the same as a 200mm lens.


    Is there any lens having significantly better DoF at this range?

    > The biggest problem with this lens is its
    > poor build quality and poor light gathering properties. The lens creep
    > and
    > many complaints of the front element working its way loose and falling off
    > are totally unacceptable. And what compounds the problem is the need to


    That's really scary! I've never seen any complaints on the Internet about
    these fall outs. It would be interesting to know where these ones have been
    built? Do you have any statistics? I know that Nikon has at least 3-4
    different factories making lenses including Japan, China, Thailand, etc. The
    price can be slightly different as well.

    > have a lot of light to wake this lens up. I find it near impossible to
    > shoot below ISO 400 and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk around
    > lens in principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if you are


    I'd expect this lens to do that. The diameter is not very large comparing to
    other better zoom lenses.

    > accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what you get.


    I notices that its price is coming down and it went out of backorder in
    several companies. Maybe people noticed more drawbacks of this lens t be
    more careful. I saw couple interesting reviews on the Internet and the test
    shots that I was not very happy with.

    > Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these dogs to offset
    > the
    > cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a rip-off and Nikon should be


    Could you recall the country where these lenses came from? Just wondering if
    this is a country/factory related fault or it's very general for this lens?

    > ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool that paid more than $750 MSRP,
    > though
    > I'm glad they do.


    Just wondering why? :)

    Just D.
     
    Just D, Apr 29, 2007
    #18
  19. Just D wrote:

    >> The 18-200mm VR
    >> It does have a decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would
    >> have been nice for it to have the same as a 200mm lens.

    >
    > Is there any lens having significantly better DoF at this range?


    Not with a single lens. This is why I use the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and
    70-200/2.8 VR for my zooms to cover this range.

    >> The biggest problem with this lens is its
    >> poor build quality and poor light gathering properties. The lens
    >> creep and
    >> many complaints of the front element working its way loose and
    >> falling off are totally unacceptable. And what compounds the
    >> problem is the need to

    >
    > That's really scary! I've never seen any complaints on the Internet
    > about these fall outs. It would be interesting to know where these
    > ones have been built? Do you have any statistics? I know that Nikon
    > has at least 3-4 different factories making lenses including Japan,
    > China, Thailand, etc. The price can be slightly different as well.


    Here's an interesting complaint.

    "My 18-200 literally fell apart in my hands on a recent trip to Antarctica.
    7 weeks to be repaired at Nikon. The glass is great. The build decidedly
    consumer."

    <http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KHW6>

    I think his issue was the front element falling out and nothing more. He's
    probably making a big stink over it because it might have hit the ground and
    broke. I don't see how anything else could fall off this lens. It's best
    to just check the tightness with a spanner wrench to be on the safe side.
    As for where these lenses were manufactured, all the ones I've seen were
    made in Thailand.

    >> have a lot of light to wake this lens up. I find it near impossible
    >> to shoot below ISO 400 and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk
    >> around lens in principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if
    >> you are

    >
    > I'd expect this lens to do that. The diameter is not very large
    > comparing to other better zoom lenses.


    Yes, the poor light gathering tendencies of this lens was expected, but it
    shouldn't be accepted for the price.

    >> accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what
    >> you get.

    >
    > I notices that its price is coming down and it went out of backorder
    > in several companies. Maybe people noticed more drawbacks of this
    > lens t be more careful. I saw couple interesting reviews on the
    > Internet and the test shots that I was not very happy with.


    I think it's more of a "Jeez this VR crap isn't all its cracked up to be on
    a slow lens." Once people use the lens they start seeing through all the
    hype and quickly come back down to earth.

    >> Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these dogs to
    >> offset the
    >> cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a rip-off and Nikon
    >> should be

    >
    > Could you recall the country where these lenses came from? Just
    > wondering if this is a country/factory related fault or it's very
    > general for this lens?


    Country of origin shouldn't matter since Nikon should take full
    responsibility for QA. All the 18-200's I've seen were from Thailand.

    >> ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool that paid more than $750 MSRP,
    >> though
    >> I'm glad they do.

    >
    > Just wondering why? :)


    Well, it's like paying double the MSRP for a Yugo and expecting it to
    appreciate in value like the original Cobra did. The 18-200 isn't a lens
    that'll ever appreciate in value over time like some of the other Nikkors
    have. It's a dead end with no value at the end of the road. No sense in
    paying a premium price for admission.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Apr 30, 2007
    #19
  20. "Gary Seven" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am
    > thinking
    > about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either
    > for
    > or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
    >
    > I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
    > than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
    > especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
    > lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
    > do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
    > landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat
    > (Spain).
    > Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
    > background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
    > (macro?) shots.
    >
    > So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I
    > assume
    > a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling
    > I
    > will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
    > budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in
    > glass
    > on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? TIA.


    For a general-purpose lens I think it's hard to beat the 18-70mm kit lens,
    or perhaps the 18-135mm kit lens that was introduced with the D80 if you
    need or want the extra reach at the long end (I have no personal experience
    with the 18-135 though). Either of those should be wide enough at the short
    end for most ordinary purposes. If you feel the need for something
    ultrawide, the obvious choices are the 12-24mm Nikkor (expensive!) or the
    12-24mm Tokina (half the price, and reportedly just as good as far as
    optical performance is concerned). I have the Tokina 12-24 and it's great.

    For macro there are a couple of current and some older Nikkors that should
    suit you if you don't mind paying the price. For non-Nikon macro lenses the
    Tokina 100mm Pro D reportedly is outstanding. I just ordered one myself,
    don't have it yet so can't comment on it from personal experience.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Apr 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UkpQ?=

    Please help me pick out a router

    =?Utf-8?B?UkpQ?=, Feb 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    461
  2. BROZ
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    495
  3. Anthony

    Availability of Nikon D80 and 18-200 VR lens

    Anthony, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    657
    ASAAR
    Oct 18, 2006
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    439
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,067
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page