Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2009, 2:40 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
RcSulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Have done research on internet. What I get is problems with all lenses. I quess none of them are absolute perfect. I know the nikkor is the best quality, but what I want is the best image quality. Any recommendtions and why?
Thanks
Bob
RcSulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 20, 2009, 2:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

You can't expect the world from an 18-200 lens. To create such a long focal length range, there has to be some compromises. As far as superzooms go, the Nikkor is as good as it gets. The big issue is some pretty complex distortion, although there are other niggling little issues with it. The other main problem is cost...it is quite expensive...optically you could do better for less by pairing the 18-55vr with the 55-200vr.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2009, 3:56 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
RcSulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Thanks for your comments. Greatly appreciate this
RcSulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2009, 6:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I would say that, if you absolutely, positively must have a superzoom lens, the Tamron 18-270 OS is probably the best around, and it will be stabilized on your Nikon body.

See

Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro AF (Tested)

... vs. ...

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor (Tested)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2009, 7:48 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
RcSulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Thats strange, because that is the one I was thinking of. Admitedly I was seriously considering the Nikkor 18-200 VR. Here is what I initially was going to do. Is the 18-200 / the 10-20 ( not sure what brand maybey nikkor) and a 70-300 VR. My main shooting is landscape and travel photos, wildlife, and flora fona. Any additional recommendations would be welcomed. Also and extra battery and or a battery pack?

Now this has nothing to do with photography.... but how do I adjust my member Id info??
RcSulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2009, 8:14 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

RcSulz wrote:
Quote:
Thats strange, because that is the one I was thinking of. Admitedly I was seriously considering the Nikkor 18-200 VR. Here is what I initially was going to do. Is the 18-200 / the 10-20 ( not sure what brand maybey nikkor) and a 70-300 VR. My main shooting is landscape and travel photos, wildlife, and flora fona. Any additional recommendations would be welcomed.
For travel, something like the Nikkor 18-105 VR might be a better choice than a superzoom. It's cheaper, smaller, lighter, and better.

The Nikkor 70-300 VR isa very nice lens, but for birds and small animals, it might not be long enough.

RcSulz wrote:
Quote:
Also and extra battery and or a battery pack?
Never a bad idea. I have three batteries and two chargers.

RcSulz wrote:
Quote:
Now this has nothing to do with photography.... but how do I adjust my member Id info??
At the top of the page, on the right, is a row of buttons. One of them is for 'My Account'. Try that.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2009, 9:25 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
RcSulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Thanks for the response. Any ideas on a longer lens without breaking the bank account.
RcSulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2009, 9:54 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

If you want a stabilized lens, the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED is it, and Adorama.com has it for $530.

If you want something less expensive, there's nothing as good, but the Tamron 70-300 Di LD is close and it's about 1/3 the cost. But it's not stabilized, and the longer focal lengths are where stabilization will probably help the most.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2009, 11:40 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I would agree with TC...if you're going to get the 70-300, and 10-20, you're better off with the 18-105 or better yet the 16-85. You're going to get better quality. The 18-105 would be the budget choice, the 16-85 is approx the same price as the 18-200 (actually a bit cheaper). You'll get better IQ at all focal lengths, and you'll be able to share filters (except the filters won't fit on the 10-20, but filters will really vignette such a wide angle lens). Remember though, the 70-300 is pretty weak over 200mm, and has some strange bokeh at full zoom.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2009, 10:58 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
RcSulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Thanks for your response again. There was 2 reasons for looking at the 18-200/18270 is convenience and also so I do not have many lens changes( the dust factor). I am not too much concerned about cost as I want the sharpest lens(s) I can afford. I quess I want the whole range but I have to be realistic to. The wide is for panoramic shots, the telephoto is for wildlife. Boy... this buying a lens(s) is like picking out a good pair of speakers.
RcSulz is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:50 AM.