'Everyday Lens' to use with Nikon D200

Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

Thanks,
BDW

BDW wrote:
Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

I got the 18-70 kit lens for that; and then after about a year upgraded
to the 17-55/2.8, and have been happy with that.

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:02:19 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Why, the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor of course.

OMG, it's true, what they've been saying about your gender, Floyd.

"BDW" wrote in message
...

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

I'm not keen on having to cart about heavy lenses so use the Nikkor 35mm f/2
which only weighs 205g. I started off with the 18-70 kit zoom and upgraded
to the 17-55 2.8 DX which certainly was top quality, but was very heavy at
755g, but if I *had* to have a zoom it would be this one.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

I have one and I do take it off. Rita, you claimed a while back that
the 18-200 at 200 was wider than it should be. I did a comparison
with the 70-300VR (I don't have a 70-200) and found that the the
70-300 at 185 showed the same FOV as the 18-200 at 200.

The comparison shots are on my flickr site if you wish to view them,
just skip down past the mosaics I've just added.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
:
: Some people claim that the 18-200mm VR is really the only lens to
have.
: They say they never take it off their camera.
:
:
:
:
: Rita
:

On 2007-05-26 17:09:03 -0700, BDW said:

Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

Thanks,
BDW

I like the light weight and flexibility of the 18-200 mm VR, despite
what the lens snobs say about it.

If you can't put up with its minor faults, there are all the other
lenses suggested, most of them much heavier and more expensive. If not
that, the 18-70 mm DX lens is a good lens that does not suffer from the
faults of its bigger and more expensive brother, other than being a tad
slow.

I don't use mid-range zooms for anything but portraiture, but if that
is what I want, I almost invariably turn to the 17-55 mm f/2.8 DX. But
then again, it is a heavy, expensive lens -- the DX version of the
28-70 mm f/2.8. Not what I would choose to walk around with for
ordinary snapshots.

Nikon is predicting a huge jump in lens sales this year. That could
indicate a bunch of new lenses to be announced shortly. I personally
would like to see a 35 mm f/1.8 AF-S. :-) That could become a rather
permanent fixture on my camera.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

BDW wrote:
Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

The holy trinity of zoom lenses are the lens you mention above, the
28-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8. For a large proportion of general
shooting, the 28-70/80 f/2.8 can do most of the load.

But, in the cropped sensor world of course,the 28-70 is a bit limited on
the wide end, so you could consider the new 17-55 f/2.8 although quite
expensive and has a reduced image circle which makes film use useless...
and will leave a small gap from 55 to the 70 that you have. Probably
no bigdeal.

The new Nikkor 12-24 f/4 G can then be the "wide end" of the range (also
cropped).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Adrian Boliston wrote:
"BDW" wrote in message
...

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

I'm not keen on having to cart about heavy lenses so use the Nikkor 35mm f/2
which only weighs 205g. I started off with the 18-70 kit zoom and upgraded
to the 17-55 2.8 DX which certainly was top quality, but was very heavy at
755g, but if I *had* to have a zoom it would be this one.

I've used the 35/2 and the 24/2 certainly, but that's hardly getting to
wideangle at all. My Tokina 12-24 is f/4. So the 17-55/2.8 tends to
get a lot of play.

I had someone suggest a lens I hadn't given much thought to, but now
that I've read some reviews maybe it is worth getting more feedback
about.

The Sigma 120-300mm 2.8.

I had been pretty much decided on the 70-200 VR, but should I be
looking at the Sigma as being a worthy replacement, with the bonus of
the extra focal length?

For an everyday maybe the 18-200mm VR would handle most anything...

That would be about $1500 or so I'd guess for the Sigma, then around
$800 or so for the 18-200mm. Between the two I don't know what else
I'd need other than a specialty type lens for Macro work or something
that I do almost none of anyway.

I keep trying to narrow this down...I don't want to wish I'd bought
something else 6 months down the road.

Further thoughts from anyone?

BDW





On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:21:38 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

BDW wrote:
Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.

Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

The holy trinity of zoom lenses are the lens you mention above, the
28-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8. For a large proportion of general
shooting, the 28-70/80 f/2.8 can do most of the load.

But, in the cropped sensor world of course,the 28-70 is a bit limited on
the wide end, so you could consider the new 17-55 f/2.8 although quite
expensive and has a reduced image circle which makes film use useless...
and will leave a small gap from 55 to the 70 that you have. Probably
no bigdeal.

The new Nikkor 12-24 f/4 G can then be the "wide end" of the range (also
cropped).

Cheers,
Alan

On 2007-05-27 10:21:38 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

BDW wrote:
Hello all,

I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the
70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff,
but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday
shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around.
Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave
on your camera for non-specific shooting.

The holy trinity of zoom lenses are the lens you mention above, the
28-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8. For a large proportion of general
shooting, the 28-70/80 f/2.8 can do most of the load.

But, in the cropped sensor world of course,the 28-70 is a bit limited
on the wide end, so you could consider the new 17-55 f/2.8 although
quite expensive and has a reduced image circle which makes film use
useless... and will leave a small gap from 55 to the 70 that you
have. Probably no bigdeal.

The new Nikkor 12-24 f/4 G can then be the "wide end" of the range
(also cropped).

Cheers,
Alan

Yeah, I went with the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 12-24 f/4 lenses to go with
the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. The 17-55 is a good lens, no doubt about it, but
it would have to be replaced with the 28-70 if Nikon ever brings out
the D3x. I would order them at the same time. The 17-55 lens is set up
so that you practically have to hold it pro style, with the hand
underneath the lens. If you grab it from the side it is very awkward
because the focus ring is right up against the camera body. I have
heard of people using it on film cameras. Thom Hogan says that it is
usable on film cameras from 26-55mm, but there is distinct vignetting
at less than 26 mm.

The 12-24 mm lens is one that I don't use as much as I expected. I
really liked it when photographing the streets of Vigan in the
Philippines; I set the tripod as low as it would go on cobblestones and
shot down the street with an approaching horse-drawn calesa in the
foreground. The FOV was perfect. However, I have not really liked it
for wide angle landscapes. I have always preferred a more compressed
FOV anyway -- bringing background mountains closer and so forth. I
actually use the 10.5 mm fish eye more than the 12-24 mm lens. Would I
get a 17-35 to replace this lens when the D3x comes out? Probably not
right away -- it would be a low priority.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor