If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Hi,
Nikon has announced the D40x: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=917 and a new 55-200 VR lens: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message ... and a new 55-200 VR lens: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 A bit slow isn't it? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
In article ,
"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote: "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message ... and a new 55-200 VR lens: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 A bit slow isn't it? For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. Check your bank roll and make your decision. -- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Ockham's Razor writes:
For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote: If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just the way it is. I would like to see a lighter version. -- -Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com writes:
I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just the way it is. Not sure what you mean about the 18-200 VR. The 70-200 is a big expensive lens. I'm wondering if they can make one that's smaller and more affordable that's equally fast, for the DX format. This new 55-200 is a low cost VR tele that's too slow to be interesting, but that they chose DX format for it indicates there were some savings from doing so. Even a 70-200/4 VR would be of some interest. I missed out on a chance to get a 300/2.8 ED MF for a very low price but I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote: If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. Really, what's the point? Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would* save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX -- and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the 70-200 on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though). (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens which is slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be faster and VR would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next* quarter I can consider the 70-200 VR as well.) We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just the way it is. The 18-200 is no doubt an okay lens for outdoor scenic snapshots. It's *far* too slow for any kind of available light work, though; two stops slower where it matters (the long end, where you need higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake problems). Remember, they're *both* VR. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
. net... Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. Really, what's the point? Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would* save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX -- and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the 70-200 on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though). (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens which is slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be faster and VR would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next* quarter I can consider the 70-200 VR as well.) But wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 VR lens, even if optimized for digital sensors, be just as big, heavy and expensive as a full frame version? Not to mention an f2 version. I'm not sure what could be short cutted to get it smaller and cheaper. -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote: Ockham's Razor writes: For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. The market for those two lenses is entirely different. -- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New Nikon D40x and a new lens
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote: I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary. Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo. About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can add the 1.4 50 for about 200.00 for low light interiors at parties. -- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Buying old lens : VIVITAR 58MM NIKON/ NIKKOR compatible MACRO/ ZOOM Lens | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 6th 06 04:56 AM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
{FA} Nikon HN-3 Lens Hood & Nikon Lens Caps | Wade-Saunders | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | September 14th 05 03:18 PM |