Which lenses to go with

THO wrote:

After reading your 3 articles where you kept suggesting something that
the OP couldn't afford, as well as the other 6 responses, I went back to
the original post. It's very clear that your assessment is based on YOUR
personal requirements. The OP isn't going to be photographing moose on
the Alaskan tundra year round any time soon.

Neither am I, so what is your point?

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

ASAAR wrote:
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

Why not stick with what the OP needs, and ignore *your* requirements.

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.

Again..., same point.

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

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:27:08 -0900, Floyd "Lensman" Davidson wrote:

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

Why not stick with what the OP needs, and ignore *your* requirements.

Because, as should be clear to even a befuddled moose, I'm not
responding to the OP, but to David. I'm not surprised by this lame,
pathetic response. Being caught making a fool of yourself smarts,
but making such lame replies isn't very smart, even if doing so
briefly helps erase the sting of embarrassing memories.


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.

Again..., same point.

Which emphasizes the point that unlike your replies, I didn't say
that David's viewpoint is wrong. What works for him doesn't
necessarily work for me, and vice-versa. That's the essence of
YMMV, doncha know?

What you can't seem to understand is that most of us agree with
your point, that if tested at the extremes of its focusing range,
wide open, the 80-200 f/2.8 lens will indeed show advantages
compared to what's possible from what you consider to be inferior
lenses. But for many people those advantages would either not be
needed often enough or would be completely swamped by the advantages
of "lesser" lenses, which include much lower cost, much lower
weight, and being able to be afforded *now* instead of 5 years down
the road. These are still very good lenses, in no way dogs compared
to the faster, heavier, more expensive f/2.8 lens. The OP has his
own needs, desires and limits. He might even secretly covet the
80-200 f/2.8 lens. But you're unwilling or unable to accept the
possibility that it might be the wrong lens for *him* even though
it's the right one for *you*. Listen to the OP, not to your inner
voices.


"You're so vain
You probably think this lens is about you
You're so vain
I bet you think this lens is about you
Don't you?
Don't you?" -- Carly Nikon

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:59:36 -0500, Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN
SIG!) wrote:

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.

Have you considered the ability of the D200 to require focus lock in AF-C
mode which the D80 can't?

Yes, thanks to recent messages here. This point is mentioned
nicely, though in general terms in one of dpreview's glossary
articles. It would also be nice if there are any fairly complete
tests showing focusing performance of different lenses on different
bodies. Most likely, a D200 and long, fast, heavy lenses aren't in
the cards for me. I still haven't entirely ruled out a D200 (or its
successor), but for now the D80 seems more attractive.

ASAAR wrote:
Again..., same point.

Which emphasizes the point that unlike your replies, I didn't say

You certainly whine a lot, and you base most of it on outright
dishonest claims.

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

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:17:29 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson whined:

Which emphasizes the point that unlike your replies, I didn't say

You certainly whine a lot, and you base most of it on outright
dishonest claims.

This isn't the first time you've done this. When you can't defend
your ridiculous assertions, you resort to insults and bogus personal
attacks. Isn't it odd that you suddenly become too timid to
identify any of these supposed dishonest claims? Or do you mean
that anyone who attempts to refute Floyd's Omniscient Assertions
must by definition be lying?

ASAAR wrote:
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.

You've no doubt read the people complaining heavily about plastic
cameras, and about how they feel shoddy? While I don't actually make
the complaints much, that's my instinctive reaction to cameras like the
D50 and probably the D80. They just feel cheap. The D200 isn't a
problem for me to hold or carry, and the fact that I only carry one body
instead of two these days (don't need multiple films at once) lightens
my bag considerably.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:17:29 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson whined:

Which emphasizes the point that unlike your replies, I didn't say

You certainly whine a lot, and you base most of it on outright
dishonest claims.

This isn't the first time you've done this. When you can't defend
your ridiculous assertions, you resort to insults and bogus personal
attacks. Isn't it odd that you suddenly become too timid to
identify any of these supposed dishonest claims? Or do you mean
that anyone who attempts to refute Floyd's Omniscient Assertions
must by definition be lying?

Your articles continue to describe yourself. *YOUR* articles
are an ongoing stream of "insults and bogus personal attacks".

Your dishonesty started with saying I knew nothing about the
intended uses or needs of the OP, and basing nearly an entire
article on that, despite the significant amount of descriptive
information posted for exactly that purpose by the OP.

My article cited above pointed at another out and out lie: "I
didn't say ...", was followed by exactly what you did say.

And look at the paragraph you posted above. It is all *your*
emotional fantasy.

Between your first response and this last one, you've repeatedly
posted dishonest statements. You are well aware that you
haven't got a logical leg to stand on, and lacking a loud enough
emotional tirade you might as well not post at all.

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

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:22:51 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

You've no doubt read the people complaining heavily about plastic
cameras, and about how they feel shoddy? While I don't actually make
the complaints much, that's my instinctive reaction to cameras like the
D50 and probably the D80. They just feel cheap. The D200 isn't a
problem for me to hold or carry, and the fact that I only carry one body
instead of two these days (don't need multiple films at once) lightens
my bag considerably.

Want to try a test? Not a real, MANDATORY test of the kind
someone else in this thread might demand, but one that's more of a
mind experiment, since for all I know it might not be possible for
you to actually not use the D200 for an extended period. Carry
around one of the P&S superzooms everywhere for a couple of weeks
and then see what you think of carrying your D200 and the bag that I
suppose holds flash equipment, multiple lenses and assorted
paraphenalia.

I haven't held the D200 but I'm sure that it would convey the
feeling of a finely made precision instrument. But there are
plastics and there are plastics. Some of the Fuji and Canon
lightweights I've held gave a slight impression of flimsiness, but
my little plastic Fuji S5100 has a good, solid feel and a design
that makes it a pleasure to hold and use. Coming from this angle,
the D80 and probably the D50 as well, would in no way feel cheap. I
wonder what kind of impression someone who has only handled Leicas,
Linhofs, Hasselblads and maybe even an old Alpa would get if they
were to use a D200 for a week? Seriously, I don't know how the D200
compares, especially since it's not even a top-of-the-line Nikon.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:44:58 -0900, Floyd L. Doozy wrote:

Between your first response and this last one, you've repeatedly
posted dishonest statements. You are well aware that you
haven't got a logical leg to stand on, and lacking a loud enough
emotional tirade you might as well not post at all.

Ok, I tried to end this before and it didn't work, but I'll try
again. Goodnight, Floyd.