The Bottom Fell Out Of The 18-200mm VR Nikkor!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the people
    that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are having a tough
    time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint condition used ones struggle
    to make $650. This poor seller did a Buy It Now for $475. This is why it
    is so important to never get caught up in feeding frenzies or other hype
    driven buying campaigns. Always follow the 40% rule when buying photography
    equipment. I wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap
    feel about now?

    <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290150404278>






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.
    In short- what flows from the "Rita Ä Berkowitz" is likely "a piece of
    crap".

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the
    > people
    > that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are having a
    > tough
    > time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint condition used ones
    > struggle
    > to make $650. This poor seller did a Buy It Now for $475. This is
    > why it
    > is so important to never get caught up in feeding frenzies or other
    > hype
    > driven buying campaigns. Always follow the 40% rule when buying
    > photography
    > equipment. I wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece
    > of crap
    > feel about now?
    >
    > <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290150404278>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
     
    Frank Arthur, Aug 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frank Arthur wrote:
    > If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    > "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.
    > In short- what flows from the "Rita Ä Berkowitz" is likely "a piece of
    > crap".


    BTW, isn't she the one that touts enjoying new technology as soon as it
    is available is what we all should do? What about all the time these
    people she is berating got to enjoy their bleeding edge technology? She
    should be happy for them and praise them for their philosophy of having
    to be the first on their block to have the latest and greatest equipment.

    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> <snip>
     
    Michael Johnson, Aug 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Frank Arthur wrote:
    > If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    > "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.


    He doesn't top post. He is polite, articulate, and always has a
    viewpoint. That he overstates - often grossly- so many positions takes
    away from otherwise credible statements.

    Except for the times he's really trolling.

    --
    lsmft

    Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
    Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 16, 2007
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Aug 16, 10:07 am, "Frank Arthur" <> wrote:
    > If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    > "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.


    Rita is just a Nikon shill.
    You know the type.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Frank Arthur wrote:

    > If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    > "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.
    > In short- what flows from the "Rita Ä Berkowitz" is likely "a piece of
    > crap".


    LOL! How much over MSRP did you pay for your copy? I didn't mean any
    disrespect, but Nikkors supposed to increase in value as they age. If they
    drop in value they are a piece of crap.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 16, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980 wrote:

    >> If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    >> "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.

    >
    > Rita is just a Nikon shill.
    > You know the type.


    LOL!




    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 16, 2007
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Paul Furman Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

    > Frank Arthur wrote:
    >
    >> If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    >> "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.
    >> In short- what flows from the "Rita Ä Berkowitz" is likely "a piece of
    >> crap".

    >
    >
    > LOL! How much over MSRP did you pay for your copy? I didn't mean any
    > disrespect, but Nikkors supposed to increase in value as they age. If they
    > drop in value they are a piece of crap.


    My starter lens was a 28-200/3.5-5.6 and it has dropped in value... it's
    not a bad lens, really, just somehow missed the mark, probably because
    28 isn't wide enough on a DSLR & I think it was designed for film. It's
    handy that you can get from normal to 300mm equivalent, quite sharp and
    compact... it would be a useful second lens to a kit lens & the price is
    right (now).

    I'll part with it pretty readily, make me an offer :) It does have a
    little dust inside... should I just put it on ebay & not mention that?


    --
    Paul Furman Photography
    http://edgehill.net
    Bay Natives Nursery
    http://www.baynatives.com
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 16, 2007
    #8
  9. Paul Furman wrote:

    >
    > My starter lens was a 28-200/3.5-5.6 and it has dropped in value... it's
    > not a bad lens, really, just somehow missed the mark, probably because
    > 28 isn't wide enough on a DSLR & I think it was designed for film. It's
    > handy that you can get from normal to 300mm equivalent, quite sharp and
    > compact... it would be a useful second lens to a kit lens & the price is
    > right (now).
    >
    > I'll part with it pretty readily, make me an offer :) It does have a
    > little dust inside... should I just put it on ebay & not mention that?
    >
    >

    No! Er, I am sure you are joking. I got rid of my early Canon zooms at
    The Looking Glass in Beserkeley. Got rock bottom dollar, I am sure, but
    I was glad knowing they'd find their way to a starting and local
    photographer.

    Wish me bon voyage; I'm sailing to Glacier Bay on Sunday! I am psyched.
    Anyone have a favorite iceberg?

    --
    john mcwilliams

    east bay of SF, Californication being my fav. new TV show.
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 16, 2007
    #9
  10. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Guest

    On Aug 16, 3:23 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    > > My starter lens was a 28-200/3.5-5.6 and it has dropped in value... it's
    > > not a bad lens, really, just somehow missed the mark, probably because
    > > 28 isn't wide enough on a DSLR & I think it was designed for film. It's
    > > handy that you can get from normal to 300mm equivalent, quite sharp and
    > > compact... it would be a useful second lens to a kit lens & the price is
    > > right (now).

    >
    > > I'll part with it pretty readily, make me an offer :) It does have a
    > > little dust inside... should I just put it on ebay & not mention that?

    >
    > No! Er, I am sure you are joking. I got rid of my early Canon zooms at
    > The Looking Glass in Beserkeley. Got rock bottom dollar, I am sure, but
    > I was glad knowing they'd find their way to a starting and local
    > photographer.
    >
    > Wish me bon voyage; I'm sailing to Glacier Bay on Sunday! I am psyched.
    > Anyone have a favorite iceberg?
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams
    >
    > east bay of SF, Californication being my fav. new TV show.


    Sounds like a great trip. Bon Voyage!
    Helen
     
    , Aug 16, 2007
    #10
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Paul Furman Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:

    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >> My starter lens was a 28-200/3.5-5.6 and it has dropped in value...
    >> it's not a bad lens, really, just somehow missed the mark, probably
    >> because 28 isn't wide enough on a DSLR & I think it was designed for
    >> film. It's handy that you can get from normal to 300mm equivalent,
    >> quite sharp and compact... it would be a useful second lens to a kit
    >> lens & the price is right (now).
    >>
    >> I'll part with it pretty readily, make me an offer :) It does have a
    >> little dust inside... should I just put it on ebay & not mention that?
    >>

    > No! Er, I am sure you are joking. I got rid of my early Canon zooms at
    > The Looking Glass in Beserkeley. Got rock bottom dollar, I am sure, but
    > I was glad knowing they'd find their way to a starting and local
    > photographer.


    I'm thinking I should include a line in the ebay listing saying to email
    me off-line & I can sweeten the deal ;-)


    > Wish me bon voyage; I'm sailing to Glacier Bay on Sunday! I am psyched.
    > Anyone have a favorite iceberg?


    Bon Voyage!
    Are you sure you don't want a nice compact travel zoom for that trip?
    Perfect for glacier shooting! Lightweight, durable polycarbonate with a
    genuine metal mount, blazing fast maximum aperture of f/3.5, atonishing
    7.14X zoom range, internal focusing: front element does not rotate, full
    autofocus and manual mode! Good condition: no fungus or scratches on
    glass, no sign of wear on exterior. Compatible with Canon mount (with
    adapter). Made in Japan! DON'T MISS THIS DEAL - REDUCED PRICE!
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 16, 2007
    #11
  12. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Ä Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Well folks just as I predicted. [...] I wonder how the people that
    > paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap feel about now?


    Well, that happens when they buy lenses from sub-standard
    manufacturers: they fall apart, front glasses pop loose and the
    bottom falls out. If Nikon hadn't been so cheap, a bit of glue
    or another screw and the bottom would have stayed put.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 16, 2007
    #12
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 16, 1:26 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > On Aug 16, 10:07 am, "Frank Arthur" <> wrote:
    >
    > > If the troll "Rita Ä Berkowitz" considers the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens
    > > "this piece of crap" she/he/it has zero value as a lens critic.

    >
    > Rita is just a Nikon shill.
    > You know the type.


    For every one Nikon shill there are 100 Canon shills.
     
    RichA, Aug 16, 2007
    #13
  14. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 16, 9:05 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the people
    > that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are having a tough
    > time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint condition used ones struggle
    > to make $650. This poor seller did a Buy It Now for $475. This is why it
    > is so important to never get caught up in feeding frenzies or other hype
    > driven buying campaigns. Always follow the 40% rule when buying photography
    > equipment. I wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap
    > feel about now?
    >
    > <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290150404278>
    >
    > Rita


    A friend of mine tried one. Didn't buy it. Stuck with the kit
    18-70mm and the 70-200 f2.8.
     
    RichA, Aug 16, 2007
    #14
  15. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Noons Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

    > equipment. I wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap
    > feel about now?


    like crap?
    :)
    I think anyone using a "bridge camera" lens in a dslr
    deserves what they get. The whole point of dslrs is to
    be able to change lenses! Trying to make one lens do
    evewrything can only end in tears. Or wasted $$$.
    Crap, even my Zeiss r/f can change lenses!
     
    Noons, Aug 17, 2007
    #15
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    SMS Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the people
    > that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are having a tough
    > time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint condition used ones
    > struggle
    > to make $650. This poor seller did a Buy It Now for $475.


    He probably could have gotten $500 for it. You can usually get 2/3 of
    the new price for a current model lens, and this lens sells new for
    $749. On craigslist he probably could have gotten $550 if the buyer
    could examine it.

    The bottom didn't fall out, the used prices were artificially high for a
    while when the lens was in short supply.
     
    SMS, Aug 17, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA wrote:

    >> Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the
    >> people that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are
    >> having a tough time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint
    >> condition used ones struggle to make $650. This poor seller did a
    >> Buy It Now for $475. This is why it is so important to never get
    >> caught up in feeding frenzies or other hype driven buying campaigns.
    >> Always follow the 40% rule when buying photography equipment. I
    >> wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap feel
    >> about now?

    >
    > A friend of mine tried one. Didn't buy it. Stuck with the kit
    > 18-70mm and the 70-200 f2.8.


    Like I said when I first got mine it is the perfect $425 to $475 convenience
    lens ever built. It's not worth the $750 MSRP.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 17, 2007
    #17
  18. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-08-16 06:05:07 -0700, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> said:

    > Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the people
    > that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are having a tough
    > time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint condition used ones struggle
    > to make $650. This poor seller did a Buy It Now for $475. This is why it
    > is so important to never get caught up in feeding frenzies or other hype
    > driven buying campaigns. Always follow the 40% rule when buying photography
    > equipment. I wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap
    > feel about now?
    >
    > <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290150404278>


    I have no idea who would have paid $1,000+ for it in the first place. I
    bought mine for $690 within a week of it being introduced.


    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Aug 17, 2007
    #18
  19. C J Campbell wrote:

    >> Well folks just as I predicted. Desperation is now setting into the
    >> people that bought this beast for over inflated prices. They are
    >> having a tough time selling them new at the $750 MSRP and mint
    >> condition used ones struggle to make $650. This poor seller did a
    >> Buy It Now for $475. This is why it is so important to never get
    >> caught up in feeding frenzies or other hype driven buying campaigns.
    >> Always follow the 40% rule when buying photography equipment. I
    >> wonder how the people that paid $1,000+ for this piece of crap feel
    >> about now? <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290150404278>

    >
    > I have no idea who would have paid $1,000+ for it in the first place.
    > I bought mine for $690 within a week of it being introduced.


    Sadly thousands of people did. You got a good deal for getting it at that
    price during the feeding frenzy. I got on a few $750 mailing lists and got
    my first one about nine months later from Ritz. Ritz has a great deal on
    things like this when they offer no tax and free shipping. I sold three
    more after that on eBay in the mid $900s. The profit from those three sales
    made the pain of keeping one around for good measure more bearable. This
    would have been the ultimate general-purpose lens if Nikon had priced it at
    $425 to $475. The lack of quality doesn't justify the $750 MSRP.

    What makes it even worse is it won't work on the Mk III. Bastards!!!







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 17, 2007
    #19
  20. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    SMS Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

    > made the pain of keeping one around for good measure more bearable. This
    > would have been the ultimate general-purpose lens if Nikon had priced it at
    > $425 to $475. The lack of quality doesn't justify the $750 MSRP.


    They charge what they can get. People pay for the wide range, and the
    IS, and the optical and build quality is adequate for the amateur. It's
    not a professional lens.
     
    SMS, Aug 18, 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. Clyde Torres

    Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom

    Clyde Torres, Apr 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    412
    Bill Tuthill
    Apr 27, 2005
  2. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  3. Dave Collins

    User manual for Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G

    Dave Collins, Jan 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,239
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Jan 16, 2006
  4. Llatikcuf

    28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF Zoom-Nikkor on a D50?

    Llatikcuf, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    925
    Dimitris M
    Jan 28, 2006
  5. Wayne

    Part fell out of Canon T1i

    Wayne, Oct 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    769
    Irwell
    Oct 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page