Nikon 18-200mm Lens in Stock for $799

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CAGuy, Jul 1, 2007.

  1. CAGuy

    CAGuy Guest

    CAGuy, Jul 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. CAGuy

    babaloo Guest

    If you have not handled this lens you may be in for a surprise.
    It is quite hefty. Literally a pain in the neck to carry around attached to
    a camera hanging from your neck.
    Optically the Nikon is not any better than Sigma/Tamron et al, although
    image stabilization is, admittedly, its undeniable asset.
    For what they are the quality of all these lenses is surprisingly good,
    especially at the longer end of the zoom range.
    Hence it is the only lens I am taking with me on a trip to Africa (well, a
    second camera will have an ultrawide zoom!).
    Enjoy your lens.
    babaloo, Jul 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CAGuy

    Joan Guest

    I don't find the lens heavy and I have small hands.

    "babaloo" <> wrote in message
    news:sRBhi.7502$...
    : If you have not handled this lens you may be in for a surprise.
    : It is quite hefty. Literally a pain in the neck to carry around
    attached to
    : a camera hanging from your neck.
    : Optically the Nikon is not any better than Sigma/Tamron et al,
    although
    : image stabilization is, admittedly, its undeniable asset.
    : For what they are the quality of all these lenses is surprisingly
    good,
    : especially at the longer end of the zoom range.
    : Hence it is the only lens I am taking with me on a trip to Africa
    (well, a
    : second camera will have an ultrawide zoom!).
    : Enjoy your lens.
    :
    :
    Joan, Jul 1, 2007
    #3
  4. CAGuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:08:41 +1000, Joan wrote:

    > I don't find the lens heavy and I have small hands.


    Well sure. The lens would be harder to hold if you had large
    hands, as your muscles would have had to deal with the extra weight
    of your larger hands. <g>

    That said, the 18-200mm lens isn't so heavy that it can't be
    easily held. But I've sometimes walked for hours holding a small
    camera (a Fuji S5100 P&S that resembles a small DSLR) and it was so
    light that at times I wasn't even aware of holding it. I think that
    if the 18-200mm VR was mounted on the small D40, its weight would be
    quite noticeable if it was also carried around for a few hours.
    ASAAR, Jul 1, 2007
    #4
  5. CAGuy

    Joan Guest

    I've had a D50 for about 18 months and now have a D80. Both cameras
    are about the same size and weight. With the 18-200 it's just not a
    problem.


    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    :
    : Well sure. The lens would be harder to hold if you had large
    : hands, as your muscles would have had to deal with the extra weight
    : of your larger hands. <g>
    :
    : That said, the 18-200mm lens isn't so heavy that it can't be
    : easily held. But I've sometimes walked for hours holding a small
    : camera (a Fuji S5100 P&S that resembles a small DSLR) and it was so
    : light that at times I wasn't even aware of holding it. I think that
    : if the 18-200mm VR was mounted on the small D40, its weight would be
    : quite noticeable if it was also carried around for a few hours.
    :
    Joan, Jul 1, 2007
    #5
  6. CAGuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:25:09 +1000, Joan wrote:

    > : That said, the 18-200mm lens isn't so heavy that it can't be
    > : easily held.
    >
    > I've had a D50 for about 18 months and now have a D80. Both cameras
    > are about the same size and weight. With the 18-200 it's just not a
    > problem.


    Agreed. Notice that I already said that? But as I also
    indicated, holding a camera for several hours is quite different
    than picking one up for short periods to take only a few shots. As
    mentioned, I can carry the light S5100 for hours without noticing
    its weight, which is only 340g. (0.748 lb.) The D80 and 18-200mm VR
    lens (but no battery) weighs 1145g. Do you really think that you
    could also lug that body and lens around for several hours without
    noticing its weight, which is a little more than 2 1/2 pounds? A
    liter bottle of water or Coca Cola weighs less than that. At 340g.
    the S5100 weighs about as much as a 12oz. can of Coke. :)
    ASAAR, Jul 1, 2007
    #6
  7. ASAAR wrote:
    > At 340g the S5100 weighs about as much as a 12oz. can of Coke. :)


    Is it an error that DP Review says it's 480g, or is that simply with and
    without batteries?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5100/

    When you talk about carrying the camera for several hours, is that round
    your neck, in a shoulder bag, or what? The weight I carry is of concern
    to me as well.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 1, 2007
    #7
  8. CAGuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:53:37 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> At 340g the S5100 weighs about as much as a 12oz. can of Coke. :)

    >
    > Is it an error that DP Review says it's 480g, or is that simply with and
    > without batteries?


    The S5100's manual only provides the weight without batteries, at
    340g. I also used the weight without battery for the D80, since
    Nikon's manual also gave it that way. I don't know if DPReview used
    alkaline or NiMH to get the 140g. for the four AA cells, but they
    probably weigh about the same. Hold on, I'll check the data sheets.

    Ok, DPReview used NiMH cells to get the weight up to 480g.
    According to Energizer's data sheets, NiMH == 30g., alkaline == 23g.
    and lithium == 14.5g. So with alkaline batteries the S5100 would
    have weighed 432g. and with lithiums, 398g.

    BTW, as I've said before, SMS is mistaken when he says that
    lithium batteries have much greater energy density by weight and by
    volume. I agreed about the weight, but said that NiMH's volume
    remained nearly constant but nearly tripled in capacity since the
    early NiMH cells. The high capacity NiMH cells are now at least up
    to 2,700mAh and Energizer's lithium batteries are rated at 3,000mAh.
    I've also noted before that lithiums can last much longer than
    alkalines in some cameras, but not much more in others. Unlike the
    other types which don't change *too* much at different current
    levels, alkalines are very sensitive to current. They're rated from
    1,500mAh @ 500ma to 2,500 @ 100ma and 2,900mAh at 50ma.

    That's why the little analog radios can last so long using
    alkaline AA batteries, since at what I call moderate volume (and
    others might call low volume) they can draw less than 15ma from the
    batteries. Used this way, lithium batteries wouldn't power the
    radios much longer than alkaline batteries are able to. It's also
    why it doesn't pay to use lithium 9v batteries in smoke detectors.
    ASAAR, Jul 1, 2007
    #8
  9. CAGuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:53:37 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > When you talk about carrying the camera for several hours, is that round
    > your neck, in a shoulder bag, or what? The weight I carry is of concern
    > to me as well.


    Oops. I posted my last before I noticed this part of your reply.
    I don't wear it around my neck or carry it in a shoulder bag. I
    hold it in one hand - it has a short strap attached that's slightly
    larger than my hand. I occasionally carry it in a small Tamrac
    camera bag, but the bag is a very small one, only able to hold the
    camera, with a front pocket barely large enough to carry a spare set
    of batteries, (usually left home) and a filter in a mesh compartment
    in the top lid. And I've tossed the bag's neck strap and carry it
    only using the small handle attached to the bag's lid.
    ASAAR, Jul 1, 2007
    #9
  10. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:53:37 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> When you talk about carrying the camera for several hours, is that
    >> round your neck, in a shoulder bag, or what? The weight I carry is
    >> of concern to me as well.

    >
    > Oops. I posted my last before I noticed this part of your reply.
    > I don't wear it around my neck or carry it in a shoulder bag. I
    > hold it in one hand - it has a short strap attached that's slightly
    > larger than my hand. I occasionally carry it in a small Tamrac
    > camera bag, but the bag is a very small one, only able to hold the
    > camera, with a front pocket barely large enough to carry a spare set
    > of batteries, (usually left home) and a filter in a mesh compartment
    > in the top lid. And I've tossed the bag's neck strap and carry it
    > only using the small handle attached to the bag's lid.


    Thanks, ASAAR. I normally carry a small camera bag on the shoulder, with
    room for two small cameras, spare CF/SD cards, batteries etc.
    Hand-holding a DSLR and lens compared to the Fuji would be a significant
    difference. Like you, most of my trips are on foot rather than in a car
    with brief stops. On geology trips, lunch is carried as well.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 1, 2007
    #10
  11. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:53:37 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >>> At 340g the S5100 weighs about as much as a 12oz. can of Coke. :)

    >>
    >> Is it an error that DP Review says it's 480g, or is that simply with
    >> and without batteries?

    >
    > The S5100's manual only provides the weight without batteries, at
    > 340g. I also used the weight without battery for the D80, since
    > Nikon's manual also gave it that way. I don't know if DPReview used
    > alkaline or NiMH to get the 140g. for the four AA cells, but they
    > probably weigh about the same. Hold on, I'll check the data sheets.
    >
    > Ok, DPReview used NiMH cells to get the weight up to 480g.
    > According to Energizer's data sheets, NiMH == 30g., alkaline == 23g.
    > and lithium == 14.5g. So with alkaline batteries the S5100 would
    > have weighed 432g. and with lithiums, 398g.


    Thanks for the clarification.

    > BTW, as I've said before, SMS is mistaken when he says that
    > lithium batteries have much greater energy density by weight and by
    > volume. I agreed about the weight, but said that NiMH's volume
    > remained nearly constant but nearly tripled in capacity since the
    > early NiMH cells. The high capacity NiMH cells are now at least up
    > to 2,700mAh and Energizer's lithium batteries are rated at 3,000mAh.
    > I've also noted before that lithiums can last much longer than
    > alkalines in some cameras, but not much more in others. Unlike the
    > other types which don't change *too* much at different current
    > levels, alkalines are very sensitive to current. They're rated from
    > 1,500mAh @ 500ma to 2,500 @ 100ma and 2,900mAh at 50ma.
    >
    > That's why the little analog radios can last so long using
    > alkaline AA batteries, since at what I call moderate volume (and
    > others might call low volume) they can draw less than 15ma from the
    > batteries. Used this way, lithium batteries wouldn't power the
    > radios much longer than alkaline batteries are able to. It's also
    > why it doesn't pay to use lithium 9v batteries in smoke detectors.


    And, of course, as digital cameras are much heavier current comsumers, it
    explains why alkalines can be so poor. I have seen earlier reports of
    just 10 shots! The first NiMH I bought were 1300mAh, so the 2700 mAh now
    available coupled with the reduction in camera consumption is a tremendous
    improvement.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 1, 2007
    #11
    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. john
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,453
    Jose Marques
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2V5?=

    Error 799: Internet Connection Sharing problem

    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2V5?=, Jan 28, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    582
    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY2V5?=
    Jan 29, 2007
  3. greg
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,147
    Summitar
    Sep 5, 2004
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    668
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page