Which lenses to go with

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:56:53 -0500, THO wrote:

Let's put things into perspective. We each know what we can and can't
afford. There are things that have to come first before photography --

Yes, you've made several good points, and too many posters either
choose to ignore the questions asked or don't pay close attention,
preferring to talk instead about their own interests or preferences.

Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.

Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
*his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:17:52 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.

Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
*his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.

That's a pathetic refusal to admit your mistake, Floyd. I pointed
out precisely where you were guilty as charged, and you either won't
or can't do the same. That's a very, very weak defense of your
indefensible recommendations. But I'm not surprised. You're one of
a handful here that will battle nearly forever rather than admit
error or concede a point.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:17:52 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.

Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
*his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.

That's a pathetic refusal to admit your mistake, Floyd. I pointed
out precisely where you were guilty as charged, and you either won't
or can't do the same. That's a very, very weak defense of your
indefensible recommendations. But I'm not surprised. You're one of
a handful here that will battle nearly forever rather than admit
error or concede a point.

You are still unwilling or unable to address what the OP clearly
stated his needs, his purpose, and his analysis (including price
range) were based on. Despite your claims to the contrary, the
OP *did* make that fairly clear.

You have "pointed out precisely" where *you* missed the boat.

I'll repeat it again: based on *his* stated purposes and *his*
analysis of lenses and prices, none of the lenses mentioned
("55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro") is
probably worth the price (to him) in the long run (roughly "5
years" according to the OP). Spending what he has in the piggy
bank now on an inadaquate lense merely delays acquisition of one
that matches his needs.

He would very likely be much better off to hold his purchase
until the relatively small extra cost of an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF D
ED lense can be handled.

If possible, the OP might find it very useful to figure out a
way to "test" an 80-200mm lense. A few shots at each extreme of
the focusing range, and with the aperture wide open, will
demonstrate a major part of why that lense is superior, and the
advantage that will provide to him.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:47:49 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

You are still unwilling or unable to . . .

You are unable to get it. Goodnight, Floyd.

In article , says...
I'll repeat it again: based on *his* stated purposes and *his*
analysis of lenses and prices, none of the lenses mentioned
("55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro") is
probably worth the price (to him) in the long run (roughly "5
years" according to the OP).


Maybe, but what do you suggest the OP does in the meantime?

I don't have /any/ L lenses for my canon yet, but what I do have allows
me to do quite a bit with my camera until I do get one, or two, or
[dribble] three.

My take on the OP's post is that he /does/ want the 18-200VR but can't
get one at this point in time. Perhaps he should just spend the next
couple of years looking at his camera whilst dribbling profusely.
Believe me, It isn't fun and I should know.

--
Alan LeHun

On 22 Jan 2007 00:16:40 -0800, "sgtdisturbed"
wrote:


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"sgtdisturbed" wrote:
Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
...


The Nikkor 18-70mm is the right one on the wide end.

But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
one, find a used one.


I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.

I have the Nikon 18-70 DX ED and I got a NIKON7 O-3OOMMF i4.5.6 D.AF
ED LENS (paid $300) cant price the 18-70 DX as it came with the camera
body. I can say that I use the 18-70 DX everyday and the telephoto
only occastionally, If I were you, I would tet the 18-70 its a great
all around lens and takes nice pictures.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...49&cat=1&grp=5

Looks like its about $300 and I can tell you I love it. Ken Rockwell
said this on his website

This 18 - 70 was Nikon's first midrange zoom designed for the shorter
focal lengths required by digital cameras. It was introduced along
with the D70 in February 2004. It was my favorite midrange zoom for
digital until the better and cheaper 18 - 55 came out in April 2005.
Then the 18- 200 VR came out in December 2005 which is two choices
ahead of this 18 - 70, if you can justify it.

Ken also says this about the 18-55

This $160 lens is great. I prefer it over the twice as expensive 18 -
70 mm lens for smaller size, less distortion and better zooming. This
18 - 55 zooms easily and precisely while the 18 - 70's zoom control
bunches the wide settings together at one end. I won't miss the 2/3
stop and 15mm longer range I lose compared to the more expensive 18 -
70 mm. The focusing is faster on the 18 - 70 and the 18 - 55 loses the
magic ability to focus manually just by grabbing the focus ring, but
for its intended purpose as a mid range zoom I prefer this cheaper 18
- 55.

WOW Only $160 that sounds really cheap to me. and about the 18-200 he
says this

It's a miracle! I bought mine in November 2005 and love it. It's
replaced an entire bag of lenses. All I bring anywhere is my 18-200mm,
and maybe my 12-24mm for 99% of everything I shoot.

Dont always agree with him but now I am so interested in this 18 - 200
lens its at B&H for $749 a bit expensive but I must say, this will
probably be my next lens. But your you, I think the 18-70 is the one
I would buy. Good Luck let us know what you bought and how you like
it

Now what about Tokina lenses? There is a 17mm Tokina that I'm looking
at, but I'm not sure if it's as good as the Nikon 18-70. I'm aware
that it's a 17mm only, which doesn't bother me, but if the 18-70 is
better, then I will stick with it. I am also looking at some Tokina
manual focus lenses, presumably older lenses for older film cameras,
so I don't know if they would even work on my Nikon D50 or if they
would fit. I'm looking at the Tokina 60-300, 100-300, and 24-200. I am
sure that the 24-200 would work fine, but as for the 60-300 and
100-300, I'm not sure if they are compatible. Could you guys let me
know if they are or aren't?

On Jan 28, 10:31 am, LuvLatins wrote:
On 22 Jan 2007 00:16:40 -0800, "sgtdisturbed"
wrote:





Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"sgtdisturbed" wrote:
Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
...

The Nikkor 18-70mm is the right one on the wide end.

But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
one, find a used one.

I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.I have the Nikon 18-70 DX ED and I got a NIKON7 O-3OOMMF i4.5.6 D.AF
ED LENS (paid $300) cant price the 18-70 DX as it came with the camera
body. I can say that I use the 18-70 DX everyday and the telephoto
only occastionally, If I were you, I would tet the 18-70 its a great
all around lens and takes nice pictures.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...49&cat=1&grp=5

Looks like its about $300 and I can tell you I love it. Ken Rockwell
said this on his website

This 18 - 70 was Nikon's first midrange zoom designed for the shorter
focal lengths required by digital cameras. It was introduced along
with the D70 in February 2004. It was my favorite midrange zoom for
digital until the better and cheaper 18 - 55 came out in April 2005.
Then the 18- 200 VR came out in December 2005 which is two choices
ahead of this 18 - 70, if you can justify it.

Ken also says this about the 18-55

This $160 lens is great. I prefer it over the twice as expensive 18 -
70 mm lens for smaller size, less distortion and better zooming. This
18 - 55 zooms easily and precisely while the 18 - 70's zoom control
bunches the wide settings together at one end. I won't miss the 2/3
stop and 15mm longer range I lose compared to the more expensive 18 -
70 mm. The focusing is faster on the 18 - 70 and the 18 - 55 loses the
magic ability to focus manually just by grabbing the focus ring, but
for its intended purpose as a mid range zoom I prefer this cheaper 18
- 55.

WOW Only $160 that sounds really cheap to me. and about the 18-200 he
says this

It's a miracle! I bought mine in November 2005 and love it. It's
replaced an entire bag of lenses. All I bring anywhere is my 18-200mm,
and maybe my 12-24mm for 99% of everything I shoot.

Dont always agree with him but now I am so interested in this 18 - 200
lens its at B&H for $749 a bit expensive but I must say, this will
probably be my next lens. But your you, I think the 18-70 is the one
I would buy. Good Luck let us know what you bought and how you like
it

LuvLatins wrote:
On 22 Jan 2007 00:16:40 -0800, "sgtdisturbed"
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"sgtdisturbed" wrote:
Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
...


The Nikkor 18-70mm is the right one on the wide end.

But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
one, find a used one.

I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.

I have the Nikon 18-70 DX ED and I got a NIKON7 O-3OOMMF i4.5.6 D.AF
ED LENS (paid $300) cant price the 18-70 DX as it came with the camera
body. I can say that I use the 18-70 DX everyday and the telephoto
only occastionally, If I were you, I would tet the 18-70 its a great
all around lens and takes nice pictures.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...49&cat=1&grp=5

Looks like its about $300 and I can tell you I love it. Ken Rockwell
said this on his website

This 18 - 70 was Nikon's first midrange zoom designed for the shorter
focal lengths required by digital cameras. It was introduced along
with the D70 in February 2004. It was my favorite midrange zoom for
digital until the better and cheaper 18 - 55 came out in April 2005.
Then the 18- 200 VR came out in December 2005 which is two choices
ahead of this 18 - 70, if you can justify it.

I bought an 18-70, used, to add to my lens collection and use with my
D200. I have to say I'm quite disappointed with one aspect of it. I
get rather bad flare sometimes, in situations where I can't really
figure out what's causing it, and even with the lens hood on. I have
much more trouble with it than I did with various Tokina and Tamron and
Vivitar 28-70, 28-90, and 28-105 lenses for film (also used on digital),
and even more than I have with my Tokina 12-24mm.

I'm now considering upgrading to the 17-55 f/2.8.

THO wrote:

Let's also be real -- what percentage of photographers really have the
skill to properly use the unwieldy 80-200 2.8 lens? If you're not an
advanced amateur, semi-pro, or pro, the 80-200 doesn't belong on a list
of suggested lenses. How many 100 lb grandmothers pull out their 80-200
when they need to take photos of the grandkids?

Then again, I figured people caring enough about photography to be
buying DSLRs and participating in newsgroups *were* advanced amateurs,
semi-pros, or pros. Certainly most of them.

I wouldn't describe the 80-200 f/2.8 as unwieldy, either; it's compact
and quite easy to use. (I've used the Nikon on rental, but the one I
own is a Tokina).

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:26:35 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I wouldn't describe the 80-200 f/2.8 as unwieldy, either; it's compact
and quite easy to use. (I've used the Nikon on rental, but the one I
own is a Tokina).

That's an individual preference. I've almost ruled out
considering the D200 over the D80 almost entirely based on the
D200's size and weight. Some people (including me) prefer traveling
light, and consider the 80-200 f/2.8 to be large and unwieldy. That
doesn't mean that I'd never consider getting one if I needed the
speed advantage that it offers, but the way things are right now,
it's the wrong lens for me. YM evidently V.