New DSLR user and need advice on Zoom Lenses...

In article , The
Henchman wrote:

The 28-200 Nikon one is out of my price range but I tried it. After
sales
tax it's almost $900 in Canada. If I really want this lens I'd have to
buy
it in the USA and void the warranty, but the person that got me the
camera
to begin with took Nikon in part because of the suberb factory warranty.
Nikon warranties are not transferable to other nations.

the 28-200 g is discontinued and when it was new, it was about
$200-300. you can find it used for less. you must be thinking of a
different lens, perhaps the 18-200 vr.

It was AF-s VR DX IF-ED.

definitely not the 28-200 g.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:13:12 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote in
:

A photo store near me stocks a 18-105 mm Nikkor VR. F/3.3-5.6G AF-S ED VR
DX. Basic research suggests that this is the same current "kitted" lens
with D90s. The lens itself retails around $350 to 380 although there are
plenty of $400+. The shop in question is a reputable national photo chain
store that only stocks brand name so no tamron's, sigmas, tokinas. Other
reasearch suggests that this DX is for smaller sensor camera's like mine.

It's made in Thailand and has a plastic fitting but its auto focus' really
really quiet. There is some distortion at the corners but thru the
viewfinder I saw no "softening" I guess I wouldn't know until I printed an
8x10. The focus ring is small on my hand but the autofocus seems to work
well so this might not be a problem for my clumsy fingers. The zoom ring is
huge and easy to use.

This is the boxed lens, not taken from a kit cause I phoned back to ask them
so a full 5 year warranty is in effect.

It has the wide angle I think I'd be happy with and a zoom that I can enjoy
and the price is within my budget.

Does anyone here have expierence with this lens? Is there a Sigma with
IS/VR that can compete? Does the 16-85 mm produce a better zoom than the
105? Does the 105 produce photos that need to be "processed" to fix any
distortion at that focal length? and if so does a good 85 mm zoom eliminate
a so-so 105?

Only you can decide that. Different people will have different needs,
different standards, and different opinions.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:47:24 -0500, ASAAR wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:52:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

My hiking tripod weighs less than my camera.

Wow, you sure trumped him with that one, but otherwise, not a very
useful comment.

Wow, you sure trumped me with that one, but otherwise, not a very
useful comment.

Your replies are possibly being influenced for the worse by
immaturity. What next, "I know your are, but what am I?"? Your
reply was in no way useful, and if you don't know why, ask someone
more knowledgeable for help. That may be advisable in any case.
Have you spoken with anyone about, or been checked for Asperger
syndrome? This isn't a slur nor is it a personal attack. ...

Sure it is. You're just not mature enough to admit that.

With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.

--
John

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:13:34 -0800, John Navas wrote:

Your replies are possibly being influenced for the worse by
immaturity. What next, "I know your are, but what am I?"? Your
reply was in no way useful, and if you don't know why, ask someone
more knowledgeable for help. That may be advisable in any case.
Have you spoken with anyone about, or been checked for Asperger
syndrome? This isn't a slur nor is it a personal attack. ...

Sure it is. You're just not mature enough to admit that.

With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.

And with that action you've *really* conceded the debate by
turning tail, running and hiding. Facts don't change by averting
your eyes. If you checked the DPR links you'd couldn't help but
understand that there was no insult, other than your perpetual
misconstruing of almost *everything* as insults. An example was
mentioned in the previous message where you see "P&S" as a slur. I
use them and recommend P&S cameras to others. I gave one as a gift
to my niece less than a week ago. You're the *only* person I know
that sees "P&S" as a slur. My Fuji S9600 bridge camera is a P&S,
and is as much a P&S as your Panny. You go out of your way to find
things that you're bothered by. That's a problem of your own making.


P.S. I think that you left this at the door :

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year

The Henchman wrote:

A photo store near me stocks a 18-105 mm Nikkor VR. F/3.3-5.6G AF-S ED VR
DX. Basic research suggests that this is the same current "kitted" lens
with D90s. The lens itself retails around $350 to 380 although there are
plenty of $400+. The shop in question is a reputable national photo chain
store that only stocks brand name so no tamron's, sigmas, tokinas. Other
reasearch suggests that this DX is for smaller sensor camera's like mine.

It's made in Thailand and has a plastic fitting but its auto focus' really
really quiet. There is some distortion at the corners but thru the
viewfinder I saw no "softening" I guess I wouldn't know until I printed
an 8x10. The focus ring is small on my hand but the autofocus seems to
work well so this might not be a problem for my clumsy fingers. The zoom
ring is huge and easy to use.

This is the boxed lens, not taken from a kit cause I phoned back to ask
them so a full 5 year warranty is in effect.

It has the wide angle I think I'd be happy with and a zoom that I can
enjoy and the price is within my budget.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1221/cat/13

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

The Henchman wrote:

A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while the
Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. A 28-105 is about $500 for Nikon and
$300 for Tamron.

Remember that the 18-200 DX VR is f/3.5-5.6, while the 80-200 AF-D is
f/2.8 through its entire range.

I was looking at some photos taken with the 80-200 AF-D tonight, and the
faster speed is a trade-off for the lack of VR that seemed to work well.
The photos were taken with a D200, without flash, at high ISO, and were
of a gymnastics competition.

These are both costly lenses, but of very good quality.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:46:01 -0500, The Henchman wrote:


Tripod is tough for me to carry on 20 mile hikes. I do have a
wonderful aluminum tripod. I'm 6' myself so a good 6' tripod works
wonders, until you are 20 miles in the bush.....

Correction; Tripod is 5' 6"

Does this mean you don't go home?

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:00:33 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote:

....


The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think but
my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy taking a
landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects and zooming
in taking taking pictures of those. The landscapes are almost always
non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.


I would suggest that I have found that most people tend to
forget that the mountain or landmark they are photographing has a
context around it. A mountain does not stand there by itself, but
there are the smaller hills leading up to it and that building is
impressive, but it looses a lot when you don't include the buildings
and people around it.

Don't always use a telephoto because a subject is far away.
Your eyes don't go telephoto and neither should your camera in every
case. When walking in the mountains I usually don't bother with a
telephoto, rather I take a normal and a wide angle. Same when doing
cityscapes.

That does not mean you should not use telephoto, but just
don't make the error of assuming you need them. Many years ago when
I worked in retail photo, I saw many people pick up their photos of a
trip and commenting that "You just can't capture what you see on film"
I often suggested using a wide angle next time, and often they showed
me their results next time and thanked me. Try it. You may too.

ASAAR wrote:

perpetual misconstruing of almost *everything* as insults.

That is *not* Aspergers. Many of the interesting gear-heads in here are
a tad autistic, myself included g.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:58:22 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

perpetual misconstruing of almost *everything* as insults.

That is *not* Aspergers. Many of the interesting gear-heads in here are
a tad autistic, myself included g.

Did you check the two DPR links I posted? The guy is *extremely*
gifted, intelligent, creative, talented, in the sciences, arts,
engineering, etc., whatever. He talks of having many of the
classical symptoms and lacks others, some of which, such as not
finishing or following through on all of the projects he starts, he
finds very frustrating. He's designed and produced his own cameras
and lenses, and is the guy that I mentioned previously that has
produced monochrome sensors by dissolving the microlenses and Bayer
filters from some of his Nikon sensors. He and Aspergers exemplify
the acronym YMMV. My assessment of John may be off the mark,
but to paraphrase B. D.'s ballad of another man, "something's
happening and you don't know what it is . . . do you, Mr. John?"