Travel lens.

On Apr 9, 4:37 pm, Walter Banks wrote:
Anyone have an opinion of this lens as a dslr one size fits all
travel lens.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f3.5-5.6

Many Thanks

w..


I never would find 18mm wide enough, and this lens seems to have more
variable quality than other Nikon lenses. As you either love it (good
copy) or hate it (bad copy). The new Nikon 16-85 seems to be an
excellent lens, just enough wider and a reputation as being sharp as a
tack, better testing than the 17-55 which costs twice as much. The
16-85 also has a newer VR system. 85mm is a nice top focal length for
city travel, if you are out in the country side you may want to add on
a 70-300, the VR model.

Tom

In article ,
nospam wrote:

focal lengths are only valid at infinity focus. internal focus lenses
alter the focal length as they are focused closer.

Is that true of all (internal focus) lenses, or just zooms? Will a 200 mm
fixed lens be 200 mm over it's entire focus range?

On 2008-04-09 23:22:02 -0700, Tony Polson said:

Steve wrote:

I think you've given a good summary of it's good and bad points. The
people who just dismiss it as a worthless lens are likely ones who've
never used it.


Or perhaps they have standards that are somewhat higher than this lens
would ever be capable of reaching?

Basically, like all superzooms, regardless of brand, this is a
mediocre lens that performs somewhere between badly and reasonably in
a fairly wide range of situations.

I don't think it performs badly anywhere. Okay, if you are shooting
test patterns under tightly controlled conditions you can notice some
slight differences at very high magnification between this lens and one
costing two or three times as much and not having the zoom range that
this one has.

This is a Nikon lens. It is worthy of the name.


It never performs well. But it is reasonably cheap and it suits
people who want to carry only one lens.

I have to wonder why these people bought a DSLR in the first place.
However, it is a fact that large numbers of DSLR buyers value
convenience over optical performance, and most of them will never even
realise just what a disappointing optic this is.



Really. So tell me how this lens disappoints.

You know, the whole point of compact cameras like DSLRs is to shoot
handheld. I dare say that most people get far better pictures with this
lens hand held than most pros got with SLRs before the introduction of
image stabilization.

Yes, there are sharper lenses with less distortion. They also cost a
lot more and are extremely finicky in getting that extra performance
out of them. Mount up a great lens such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a
weighted tripod, lock up the mirror, shoot remote, and you can get a
sharper picture than with the 18-200. But then, if you are going to
shoot that way, why did you get a DSLR instead of a view camera? The
pro versions of some DSLRs, such as the Nikon D3P, don't even have a
tripod mount. Shoot handheld, and I defy anyone to tell the difference
from one lens to another.

Most of the lenses available for view cameras are not as good as those
you can get for DSLRs. Yet by most objective standards the view camera
outperforms a handheld DSLR. It ain't the lens, bro.

You know, you are out there on the dance floor, trying to get some
shots of people dancing in some nightclub, do you think that lens
quality matters? You are dragging the shutter, popping the flash at
rear curtain, shooting handheld. Lens quality is the least of your
worries.

Or you are standing on some cruise ship, or out on your kayak,
photographing a couple seals on a bergie bit. You think lens quality
matters then? Or that sunrise on the mountain, does lens quality
matter? Or taking some family shots in front of the Eiffel Tower in Las
Vegas. Does lens quality matter?

Clamping your camera to a car window -- lens quality does not matter,
whether the car is 'moving' or not (cars, tour buses, safari vehicles,
etc, are always moving, even when the engine is off; they make lousy
tripods, but great blinds).

You know, the 18-200 is so far beyond the typical lens you see on a
point & shoot it isn't even funny. Yet I see people take good pictures
with point & shoots and even cell phones all of the time.

The difference between the worst DSLR lens (and the 18-200 is far from
being the worst) and the best DSLR lens is so tiny that you cannot
possibly see it when shooting handheld or even if you are manually
tripping the shutter. Your own heartbeat and breathing ruin the picture.

For most people, even mounting the camera on a tripod won't make that
much of a difference, what with the photographer, the dog, and
everybody else stomping around in the vicinity. Believe it or not, most
people don't lug around a couple hundred pounds of sandbags to hold
their tripods steady. But that is what it takes to see the difference
between an expensive lens and the 18-200.

The 18-200 is a better lens than most primes were in my day. The thing
is a miracle of engineering. The fact that you can get a better lens
does not make this one a bad lens.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2008-04-10 04:03:06 -0700, "Rita Berkowitz" said:

nospam wrote:

The 200 mm focal length gives the same field of view as a 200 mm lens
when it is focused at infinity. At closest focus the field of view is
more like that of a 135 mm lens.

focal lengths are only valid at infinity focus. internal focus lenses
alter the focal length as they are focused closer.

Not a problem when it is only a small percentage like it is in most other
zooms. You have paid for 200mm you should get reasonably close to 200mm.
This lens has been an overall embarrassment for Nikon. Just pity the fool
that paid over $1,000 USD after listening to the hype and are now stuck with
it. There are a lot of people kicking themselves in the ass and wish they
had listened to my advice about this lens. It would be a stellar lens
had it an MSRP of $475.





Rita

A bit of hype, there, Rita. No one I know of pays more than $1,000 for
this lens. Quite a bit less, usually. You can get it from Adorama for
$680. I think that is a good value.

Heck, you can get it from Costco as a kit lens with a D300 for $2,129.
That looks like a pretty good deal to me.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:03:06 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote:

nospam wrote:

The 200 mm focal length gives the same field of view as a 200 mm lens
when it is focused at infinity. At closest focus the field of view is
more like that of a 135 mm lens.

focal lengths are only valid at infinity focus. internal focus lenses
alter the focal length as they are focused closer.

Not a problem when it is only a small percentage like it is in most other
zooms. You have paid for 200mm you should get reasonably close to 200mm.
This lens has been an overall embarrassment for Nikon. Just pity the fool
that paid over $1,000 USD after listening to the hype and are now stuck with
it. There are a lot of people kicking themselves in the ass and wish they
had listened to my advice about this lens. It would be a stellar lens had
it an MSRP of $475.

Lol @ overall embarrassment. Two and a half year later, it's still
the best superzoom you can get. Oh, and at $700, the MSRP is closer
to your $475 stellar lens than your hyped over $1000. Of course, you
can get them well below MSRP by now.

Steve

In article 2008041006231375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
C J Campbell wrote:

A bit of hype, there, Rita. No one I know of pays more than $1,000 for
this lens. Quite a bit less, usually. You can get it from Adorama for
$680. I think that is a good value.

I paid about $800 (maybe even bit more, I don't remember exactly) for mine
when it first came out and was hard to get. I bought the camera and lens
because I enjoy photography as a hobby. I enjoy the pictures I take with
this lens and camera, therefore it was money well spent.

At my skill level, the limiting factor in the quality of my pictures is the
dolt behind the camera, not the lens in front of it. If it makes people
feel good to make fun of the equipment I bought, or the price I paid for
it, that's their problem.

I would gladly trade in all my camera gear for a pair of eyes which could
still focus well enough to read all the little icons in the camera's
control panel.

C J Campbell wrote:


The difference between the worst DSLR lens (and the 18-200 is far from
being the worst) and the best DSLR lens is so tiny that you cannot
possibly see it when shooting handheld or even if you are manually
tripping the shutter. Your own heartbeat and breathing ruin the picture.

That's utter poppycock.

I own several lenses for my Canon 30D: kit 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom, 24-105 f/4L IS zoom,
70-300mm IS zoom, 50 mm f/1.7 prime, and 100mm f/2.8 macro.

One cannot see the quality difference between the last two, they are both
superb. But between them and the others there really is a visible quality difference,
yes even the expensive L glass. With a 4x6 print it is hard to see with any
except the kit lens, uncorrected for lateral chromatic. But at 8x11 it is obvious
that that the primes are better. Yes, this is handheld. IS, or just the sun
shining on the scene to up the shutter speed, works wonders for sharpness.

However, even at 8x11, if one corrects the lateral chromatic in software, all,
including the lowly $140 kit lens, produce perfectly acceptable picture.
The primes are just better than acceptable!

Doug McDonald

C J Campbell wrote:

Really. So tell me how this lens disappoints.


Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. Most people who buy it won't
be disappointed because they have low expectations and the lens will
far exceed those.


You know, the whole point of compact cameras like DSLRs is to shoot
handheld. I dare say that most people get far better pictures with this
lens hand held than most pros got with SLRs before the introduction of
image stabilization.


I don't know where you get the idea that pros take better pictures
than amateurs. Some of the best pictures you will ever see are taken
by amateurs.

There are very few pros who take outstanding pictures. The rest of us
get by. Many pros use mediocre, worn or damaged equipment. Getting
the shot and delivering on time, and getting paid of course, is what
matters.


Yes, there are sharper lenses with less distortion. They also cost a
lot more and are extremely finicky in getting that extra performance
out of them. Mount up a great lens such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a
weighted tripod, lock up the mirror, shoot remote, and you can get a
sharper picture than with the 18-200. But then, if you are going to
shoot that way, why did you get a DSLR instead of a view camera? The
pro versions of some DSLRs, such as the Nikon D3P, don't even have a
tripod mount. Shoot handheld, and I defy anyone to tell the difference
from one lens to another.


That depends who you include in your choice of "anyone".


Most of the lenses available for view cameras are not as good as those
you can get for DSLRs.


That's a ridiculous comment, with absolutely no basis in fact.


You know, you are out there on the dance floor, trying to get some
shots of people dancing in some nightclub, do you think that lens
quality matters? You are dragging the shutter, popping the flash at
rear curtain, shooting handheld. Lens quality is the least of your
worries.

Or you are standing on some cruise ship, or out on your kayak,
photographing a couple seals on a bergie bit. You think lens quality
matters then? Or that sunrise on the mountain, does lens quality
matter? Or taking some family shots in front of the Eiffel Tower in Las
Vegas. Does lens quality matter?

Clamping your camera to a car window -- lens quality does not matter,
whether the car is 'moving' or not (cars, tour buses, safari vehicles,
etc, are always moving, even when the engine is off; they make lousy
tripods, but great blinds).


Of course the lens quality doesn't matter. You don't need a DSLR for
any of these shots. They could all be taken with a P&S digicam with a
lens with a huge zoom range. You're right; quality doesn't matter to
these people, so they will be perfectly happy with the results from a
mediocre superzoom on a DSLR.

Thank you for proving my point!


You know, the 18-200 is so far beyond the typical lens you see on a
point & shoot it isn't even funny. Yet I see people take good pictures
with point & shoots and even cell phones all of the time.

The difference between the worst DSLR lens (and the 18-200 is far from
being the worst) and the best DSLR lens is so tiny that you cannot
possibly see it when shooting handheld or even if you are manually
tripping the shutter. Your own heartbeat and breathing ruin the picture.

For most people, even mounting the camera on a tripod won't make that
much of a difference, what with the photographer, the dog, and
everybody else stomping around in the vicinity. Believe it or not, most
people don't lug around a couple hundred pounds of sandbags to hold
their tripods steady. But that is what it takes to see the difference
between an expensive lens and the 18-200.


Complete nonsense. But thank you for making me laugh!


The 18-200 is a better lens than most primes were in my day.


Complete nonsense again. But no doubt you will raise a cheer from
people who use mediocre lenses and think they're good enough.


The thing is a miracle of engineering.


It's a miracle of marketing.


The fact that you can get a better lens does not make this one a bad lens.


The fact it has an 11X zoom range doesn't make it a good lens.

But thank you for some light relief; you certainly brightened up a
dull afternoon! ;-)

I don't know where you get the idea that pros take better pictures
than amateurs. Some of the best pictures you will ever see are taken
by amateurs.

There are very few pros who take outstanding pictures. The rest of us
get by. Many pros use mediocre, worn or damaged equipment. Getting
the shot and delivering on time, and getting paid of course, is what
matters.


This is probably the most honest and straightforward definition of 'pro'
I've seen around..

Thks


P.

In article 2008041006231375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, C J
Campbell wrote:

A bit of hype, there, Rita. No one I know of pays more than $1,000 for
this lens. Quite a bit less, usually. You can get it from Adorama for
$680. I think that is a good value.

two years ago, when they were in very high demand, they sold for over
$1000 on ebay, sometimes as high as $1500.