Nikon 18-200 VR and D50 user reviews

I have posted user reviews of the 18-200VR and D50 for anyone who is
interested.

Nikon 18-200 VR
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/...pic.php?t=3033

D50
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/...pic.php?t=3029

Frank B wrote:

http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/...pic.php?t=3033

Just a note on the web page: the long link on the bottom of that page
causes the whole thing to format way too wide with mozilla browser.

Thanks for letting me know.

I revised the link to a shorter version. I hope it displays better.

Paul Furman wrote
(in article ):

Frank B wrote:

http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/...pic.php?t=3033

Just a note on the web page: the long link on the bottom of that page
causes the whole thing to format way too wide with mozilla browser.

Works fine with both Safari and Firefox on OS X.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Randy, thanks for taking a look and letting me know. I am using Safari.

Frank B wrote
(in article
.com):

Randy, thanks for taking a look and letting me know. I am using Safari.


Hmm, I mean to also say thank you for the review, there seem to
be a lot of mixed opinions on this lens. Most seem to like it,
but a few don't. The distortion has been described as
"mustache" on the wide end, making it difficult to totally
correct, as it is supposedly not purely barrel all the way
across.

I don't have one (yet), so I haven't seen it for myself. I
think of the reviews I read said it was probably fine for most
things other than architectural photography (or anything with a
lot of straight lines), especially at the wide end.

I think most of the negative comments are from people who shoot
primes or f/2.8 zooms all the time. Having once used the older
(non-VR, non-focusing, non-everything) 24-120, it has to be a
major improvement and I'm looking forward to finding one. That
seems to be more difficult than finding 4-leaf clovers right now
though.

BTW, I did get an email notification from B&H this morning that
they had the 12-24mm (USA) lens in stock finally. Somewhat
luckily, I bought it for less from Buydig a few days ago. But,
if anyone is looking for it, and wants to buy from B&H, go get
it while you can...


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

"Randy Howard" wrote in message
. net...
Frank B wrote
(in article
.com):

Randy, thanks for taking a look and letting me know. I am using Safari.


Hmm, I mean to also say thank you for the review, there seem to
be a lot of mixed opinions on this lens. Most seem to like it,
but a few don't. The distortion has been described as
"mustache" on the wide end, making it difficult to totally
correct, as it is supposedly not purely barrel all the way
across.

I don't have one (yet), so I haven't seen it for myself. I
think of the reviews I read said it was probably fine for most
things other than architectural photography (or anything with a
lot of straight lines), especially at the wide end.

I think most of the negative comments are from people who shoot
primes or f/2.8 zooms all the time. Having once used the older
(non-VR, non-focusing, non-everything) 24-120, it has to be a
major improvement and I'm looking forward to finding one. That
seems to be more difficult than finding 4-leaf clovers right now
though.

BTW, I did get an email notification from B&H this morning that
they had the 12-24mm (USA) lens in stock finally. Somewhat
luckily, I bought it for less from Buydig a few days ago. But,
if anyone is looking for it, and wants to buy from B&H, go get
it while you can...


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

I went with the D50, rather than a hot super zoom Panasonic, Nikon, or
Olympus P&S, to stay with the old and fun film slr concepts I'm accustomed
to:
use of good quality fast prime lenses, manual focus if you want it, true
macro, many flash options...
It just seems to me that the 18-200 would make my D50 into a big heavy P&S,
a pretty good one no doubt.
If it was priced around $200 that would make it interesting to me but only
for the VR.
Got to admit that the VR in that lens seems to minimize the need for a fast
aperture.
However, I feel a little guilty even letting the camera do it's autofocus
and autoexposure thing. VR may be just a little too much automation.
Half the fun for me is swapping lens's around, or making the lens that's on
the camera get the picture I want.
I enjoy the picture taking mechanics as much as the resulting pictures.

The discipline required to use a fixed lens is rare today. Long gone
are the times when
someone would buy a SLR with a 50mm normal prime and make good use of
it for
a year until they finally capitulated and bought the typical 70-200
zoom of the day.
If you find that you can work with primes you are better off, simply
because they are sharper and have less distortions and aberrations than
zooms or especially, long zooms.
But, having said that if someone has a 300mm equivalent, and all you
have is a 200mm
equivalent, your 6 megapixel camera has now become a 4 megapixel camera
and if he/she can use the whole frame for a subject, they will get a
better shot of that subject, increased aberrations/distortions
notwithstanding.
Additionally, the automation feeling like cheating makes some sense.
It's like people who use PS to boost colour, or "fake" a sunset, etc,
in an image. However, if that increased level of automation or
tweaking allows you to get closer to what your eye saw at that moment,
then (IMO) it makes good sense.

John Malone wrote
(in article
ews.net):

I went with the D50, rather than a hot super zoom Panasonic, Nikon, or
Olympus P&S, to stay with the old and fun film slr concepts I'm accustomed
to:
use of good quality fast prime lenses, manual focus if you want it, true
macro, many flash options...

No argument there. I've spend enough on nikon glass over the
years to buy a very nice car.

It just seems to me that the 18-200 would make my D50 into a big heavy P&S,
a pretty good one no doubt.

It's not that big, certainly not compared to the 80-200 AF-S I
often carry around, or the 400 AF-S which is about as portable
as a big screen TV.

The point of this lens (to me) is for when you are carrying a
camera for casual use, not for professional or "serious" work.
I.e., a great vacation lens when the wife and kids don't really
want to stand around waiting on you to get that perfect shot, or
when you don't feel like getting up at 4am to be on location at
dawn. Yes, in that sense, it is sort of a P&S attachment, but
hey, it's better than buying another camera just to carry around
with you, and it will take a lot better pictures, too.

If it was priced around $200 that would make it interesting to me but only
for the VR.

Nikon lenses with VR for $200? Show me where... :-)

However, I feel a little guilty even letting the camera do it's autofocus
and autoexposure thing. VR may be just a little too much automation.

I think I know where you could find a nice F3 with autowinder...


Half the fun for me is swapping lens's around, or making the lens that's on
the camera get the picture I want.

Sure, when you're out on a trip specifically to take pictures,
fine. When you're carrying the camera in case something happens
to take a picture of, it seems like a good choice to me.

I enjoy the picture taking mechanics as much as the resulting pictures.

No argument, but there is a time and a place for it...

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw