"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Right! What the hell does "light macro" mean? Either use the
terminology right or don't use it at all. There are people new to
this group that might
mistake you for having a clue as to what you are talking about.

What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it
determined? "Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro
must mean going down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine
macro lenses that only go to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their
products "macro" when they go to 1:4. The term is loose at best, and
"people new to this group" might as well learn that early on.

Google it up and see. The most accepted definition is 1:1 or greater
magnification. As for the lenses you talk about, which ones would these
be?

Minolta made a couple of macro lenses that would go only to 1:2 until you
attached an extension tube made for the lens -- back in the MD-mount days.
And I believe the Tokina 100mm macro lens just prior to the current Pro D
model also only went to 1:2 without attachments. I still have an old
Minolta-mount Vivitar 90mm macro that only goes to 1:2 by itself; there's an
optical adapter for it (essentially a two-element close-up lens) that takes
it to 1:1. I'm sure there must be others.


Just because some marketing genius call it macro doesn't mean that it is
really macro. And no, the 18-200 does not do macro.

No, I didn't say it did, and I don't accept all those close-focusing zooms
that the makers call "macro zooms" as being real macro lenses either. But
surely a complex, fixed-focal-length lens expressly designed for that sort
of work is properly called a macro lens whether it goes to 1:1 or only 1:2.


Poor build quality and poor light gathering
qualities are subjective. Most reviewers rave about this lens. You,

Which reviewers would these be? I mean the ones without a vested
interest in pushing this lens?

Well, I've had one for a couple of weeks, I'm prepared to rave about
it and I have no "vested interest in pushing this lens." I think it's
an absolutely fabulous, glorious, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
lens.

And what are you comparing it to? If you are used to using crap lenses
and
slap this baby on your camera you will think it's the second coming of
Jesus. It still is a crippled lens that has its uses.

But you regard *all* DX lenses as "crap." If Nikon made a 10-1000mm f/1.2
lens that focused to 1:1, delivered 200 line pairs/mm corner to corner at
all distances, focal lengths and apertures, was perfectly distortion-free
and built strong enough to use as a jack handle, if it was a DX lens you'd
still call it "crap."


OTOH, have a hatred that borders on psychopathic. "Many" complaints
about the front element falling off? Nonsense. This is a new
complaint that you made up. Neither is lens creep unique to this
lens. It is common to nearly all lenses in the price range that the
OP was talking about. Not everyone can afford to spent $1500 on a
lens, Rita.

Hey, I don't hate the lens, in fact I think in principle and concept
of turning a D200 or a D2x into a P&S on steroids is awesome. On
the other hand, I guess one could buy a decent P&S for $750 that
will perform almost as well.

I . . . don't . . . think . . . so. I have all of Nikon's last and
finest Coolpix "prosumer" models, which is the sort of thing I
suppose you mean by "P&S," and while the 8700 and 8800 are wonderful
cameras they are certainly not comparable to the 18-200 on an SLR.

The 18-200 is a convenience lens, that's it. It does a decent job on an
SLR, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that the optics are any better
than
what is found on most pocket P&S cameras.

Now there's a bizarre opinion if I ever saw one. . . . You have succeeded in
rendering me speechless, a rare condition for me.


As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint
and very
common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200.

I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't
falling off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports
of this "very common" complaint?

Try again with a spanner wrench and tell me you aren't getting a 1/4
revolution of travel to tighten it up.

Even if I had a suitable wrench, the likelihood of my trying that is
vanishingly small. I've never felt the need to "tighten up" any lens I've
owned in the past 50+ years, and I'm quite confident my new 18-200 is not
going to fall apart, fantastic stories notwithstanding.


The biggest lens creep around here is you. I have had it with your
unsubstantiated claims.

LOL! You're a fool if you find it acceptable for a $750 lens to
have lens creep and other QA problems.

I don't see lens creep as being a "QA problem," and mine hasn't crept
anyway, so far. But then I carry it with the lens shortened. I read
somewhere that the lens creep mostly occurs when the camera is
carried with the lens somewhere in mid-zoom, which seems to make
sense. If mine (which is still quite new) does eventually creep I
still won't see it as a quality problem. The part of the lens that
extends has some weight, after all, and there's a reasonable limit to
how stiff one wants the zoom control to be.

It will creep. Just get a Livestrong bracelet or a rubber band from a
bunch
of broccoli and you'll be happy.

I'm already deliriously happy without the Livestrong bracelet (whatever that
is) or rubber band. I love the lens.

Neil