Nikon lens choice for D70s

Hi All,
I have a Nikon D70s and the 18-70/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX lens. I am
thinking of replacing this lens with the 18-200/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX.
Mostly because of VR and the convenience of having to carry around
only one lens most of the time. I am still learning photography and I
really cannot justify the cost or bulk of a set of high quality zooms
and primes. Another option would be to keep the existing lens and add
a 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I am seriously considering this option but I
couldn't find a single review of this lens. Any comments?
Have a nice day,
Pradeep
--
All opinions are mine and do not represent the views or
policies of my employer.
R Pradeep Chandran rpc AT pobox DOT com

The 18-200 while a good lens in its class is crap.
It's far inferior to the 18-70 you have now, would be like selling a Porsche
and buying a Lada instead because the Lada can carry more people.
The 70-300 is a far better choice.

"R Pradeep Chandran" wrote in message
...
Hi All,
I have a Nikon D70s and the 18-70/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX lens. I am
thinking of replacing this lens with the 18-200/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX.
Mostly because of VR and the convenience of having to carry around
only one lens most of the time. I am still learning photography and I
really cannot justify the cost or bulk of a set of high quality zooms
and primes. Another option would be to keep the existing lens and add
a 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I am seriously considering this option but I
couldn't find a single review of this lens. Any comments?
Have a nice day,
Pradeep
--
All opinions are mine and do not represent the views or
policies of my employer.
R Pradeep Chandran rpc AT pobox DOT com

"R Pradeep Chandran" wrote in message
...
Hi All,
I have a Nikon D70s and the 18-70/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX lens. I am
thinking of replacing this lens with the 18-200/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX.
Mostly because of VR and the convenience of having to carry around
only one lens most of the time. I am still learning photography and I
really cannot justify the cost or bulk of a set of high quality zooms
and primes.

Zooms *are* prime lenses. Please try not to follow the now popular newsgroup
misusage of "prime" when you mean "fixed focal length." Unfortunately the
ignorant misusage has become so widespread that it now often appears in
print as well, which many people take to be authoritative. But a prime lens
is the camera's basic (or original, or chief, or primary) lens as opposed to
some other lens or optical attachment used with it. Absent the need to make
a distinction from such other attachment, "prime" has no legitimate purpose
in describing a lens.


Another option would be to keep the existing lens and add
a 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I am seriously considering this option but I
couldn't find a single review of this lens. Any comments?

There aren't any reviews because the 70-300 VR lens hasn't actually arrived
yet, as far as I know. It should be in stock in some stores soon, as
deliveries were expected to start some time this month. Several online
stores are taking orders, and I have my order in at Camera World
(www.cameraworld.com). The 18-200 is over $200 more expensive, and the
70-300 will probably be a better lens since it has a much more modest zoom
ratio. If you really hate ever changing lenses the 18-200 may be a better
choice for you, but whether it's as good optically as the 18-70 you have now
is questionable. I have a D70s with the 18-70 lens also, and it's a great
lens.

Neil

Jeroen Wenting wrote:

The 18-200 while a good lens in its class is crap. It's far
inferior to the 18-70 you have now, would be like selling a Porsche
and buying a Lada instead because the Lada can carry more people.
The 70-300 is a far better choice.


You're joking, right? The 18-200/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX Nikkor is a
superb lens. Are you confusing it with the non-VR 18-200 lens?

Pradeep, here's a review:
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

Tuli

"R Pradeep Chandran" wrote in message
...

Hi All, I have a Nikon D70s and the 18-70/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX lens. I
am thinking of replacing this lens with the . Mostly because of
VR and the convenience of having to carry around only one lens
most of the time. I am still learning photography and I really
cannot justify the cost or bulk of a set of high quality zooms
and primes. Another option would be to keep the existing lens and
add a 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I am seriously considering this
option but I couldn't find a single review of this lens. Any
comments? Have a nice day, Pradeep -- All opinions are mine and
do not represent the views or policies of my employer. R Pradeep
Chandran rpc AT pobox DOT com

The serious answer:
You will be thrilled with the Nikon 18-200.
This class of lenses is not the same as the 28-200 that were never very good
for 35mm SLR use, including the Nikon. I have tried several of the 18-200
lenses out there. They are all better than, say, the Nikon 55-200 which is
my personal nominee for one of the worst leneses Nikon ever made.
Your 18-70 has less barrel distortion at the wide end but if you learn to
use a program like Photoshop or Elements this is very easy to deal wtih, if
it bothers you at all. All the 18-200s out there have varying degrees of
barrel distortion, which is correctable, but little chromatic distortion
(which is harder to deal with). They all have pretty good control of flare
and contrast.
The 18-200 is a great all round lens for travel.
Sigma has announced a new, optically stabilized 18-200 lens (I am not sure
if the glass is different than the non stabilized they currently sell) which
will likely cost half of what the Nikon goes for. Apart from image
stabilization, which is worth the extra cost, my personal experience is that
the Nikon is not all that much better than the Sigma or Tamron for real
world use. Real world use, not optical bench measurements in magazines of
what are likely samples different from production lenses.
The Nikon 18-200 is in short supply in the US and sells at a premium in many
places.
On this newsgroup I suspect that many of the people who moan about lens
quality and sensor noise have the aesthetic capabilities of a cowpie and you
should read these postings, possibly including this one (!), with that in
mind.

R Pradeep Chandran wrote:
Another option would be to keep the existing lens and add
a 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I am seriously considering this option but I
couldn't find a single review of this lens. Any comments?

You can read some user reports, generally favorable, on the DPReview
Nikon lens forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/se...300&forum=1030

-Joe

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:11:45 GMT, "bmoag" wrote:
The serious answer:
You will be thrilled with the Nikon 18-200.

That is the impression that I got from the various reviews.

Your 18-70 has less barrel distortion at the wide end but if you learn to
use a program like Photoshop or Elements this is very easy to deal wtih, if
it bothers you at all. All the 18-200s out there have varying degrees of
barrel distortion, which is correctable, but little chromatic distortion
(which is harder to deal with). They all have pretty good control of flare
and contrast.

I haven't found the distortion in the 18-70 to be a problem. I am a
beginner and am more worried about getting the timing, composition and
exposure correct than about slight distortion. Besides, Bibble Pro has
helped in correcting the distortion.

The 18-200 is a great all round lens for travel.
Sigma has announced a new, optically stabilized 18-200 lens (I am not sure
if the glass is different than the non stabilized they currently sell) which
will likely cost half of what the Nikon goes for.

Sigma non-OS 18-200 has a MSRP of 600 USD. Nikon 18-200 retails for
750 USD (including the premium). So, I am not sure of Sigma costing a
lot less than Nikon.

On this newsgroup I suspect that many of the people who moan about lens
quality and sensor noise have the aesthetic capabilities of a cowpie and you
should read these postings, possibly including this one (!), with that in
mind.

That is very good advice. I have been reading this group for nearly an
year now and have seen many 'interesting' posts. :-)

Have a nice day,
Pradeep
--
All opinions are mine and do not represent the views or
policies of my employer.
R Pradeep Chandran rpc AT pobox DOT com

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There aren't any reviews because the 70-300 VR lens hasn't actually arrived
yet, as far as I know.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/le...2/21/5275.html

Japanese text, but also full-size sample images...
:-)
Lourens

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

There aren't any reviews because the 70-300 VR lens hasn't actually
arrived
yet, as far as I know.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/le...2/21/5275.html

Japanese text, but also full-size sample images...
:-)
Lourens

Thanks. Good to see what it looks like on the camera, too.

Neil

Zooms *are* prime lenses.

No.

as opposed to some other lens or optical
attachment used with it.

Just the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens

Aside from the attachment vs. actual lens distinction which dates back to
long before the zoom lens was invented prime has always meant fixed focal
length as opposed to zoom or variable focal length (zoom being a subset of
the latter).

Furthermore, words mean what a majority of people intend and understand
them to mean and again by this standard prime means non zoom.