|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]()
i am considering getting a uv and a c/polarizer filter for my Nikon 18-200.
not too long ago, i bought the same filters for my pentax system, the filters were the hoya pro 1 digital series. my problem is that not only is it gonna cost $270., but i was having serious focus issues, and when i took them off, the issues were gone. now that i have the Nikon system, would it create new problems, degrade the IQ should i just bank the $270, and if lhe lens gets damaged, at least i would have $270 to put up for the new lens Dave |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
72mm is a large filter. A circular ploarizing filter will cause some vignetting at the wide end even if you do get a thin filter, but you may not notice it anyway since that lens vignettes just fine all by itself.
A reasonably good UV filter would be ok, but it would need to be a thin filter too. I'd just save my money, keep the lens hood on, and hope for the best.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
will save that money is there a particular reason why Nikon did not include VR on their 2.8 premium lenses Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]() Quote:
Optical image stabilization requires a new lens design. Large apertures require a large stabilization mechanism. Nikon has done it for some, but not for all. I think Nikon has some desire to get commonly used lenses to be AF-S and VR, and they're doing more popular lens designs first. Adding VR to an f/2.8 lens will be difficult and expensive, which will often price it out of reach of the common schlub like you and me. Well, maybe not you. I'm anxiously awaiting some test reports on Tamron's 17-50/2.8 VC or Sigma's 18-50/2.8.4.5 OS. So far, these are the only fast stabilized standard zooms available.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
still juggling to match it up with the Nikon 70-300 VC for me VC is a must Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
Me too.
I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my KM5D and had no complaints. Now that I shoot Nikon, I miss having a fast standard zoom that's stabilized. I'd like to get the VC version, but I'll wait for objective test results before I take the plunge. If the Tamron doesn't pan out, I'll look real hard at the Sigma. At $300 and 2/3 stop faster than the kit lens, how could it not be a winner?
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
from the few reviews i have read so far, it sounds convincing, but yet from experience, that same reviewer say something different in 6 months time. Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|