Steve'sDigicams

geektog · Apr 25, 2006, 2:46 PM

Quote:

I sincerely think that most everyone posting here really wants to both learn and gain experience, I prefer to reach out and help as much as possible and to really encourage all of them.

MT

YIKES! I didn't know I was discouraging anyone.

PoweredBySoy wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for the post, Geek. Although it may have seemed to condradict your first post a bit, you give excellent advice. You reminded me that I do sometimes get caught up in the hardware.

I thought about that as I wrote it. If you read them again they don't conflict. And to prove it, I'll sum them both up in a single sentence. ;-)

It is better to spend a lot of money on tools then waste a little money on junk, but the tools don't make the protographer, the skill does; work on that first.

OK, so I needed a semicolon to pull it off. ;-)

PoweredBySoy · Apr 25, 2006, 4:11 PM

geektog wrote:

Quote:

OK, so I needed a semicolon to pull it off. ;-)

You're fired.

Shakyhands · May 25, 2006, 7:24 AM

Hello guys,
I am recently bought a D200 and quiet impressed with it. and willing to add a tele zoom lens into my collections.
I had a 12-24mm Tokina,a 18-70mm Nikon and a NIkon Prime lens 50mm/f1.8 .
Comparing Tokina 24-200mm and Nikon 18-200 VR - anyone can given me an advise which one should I go for? thanks..........

Regrds,shakyhands

jq · Jun 15, 2006, 9:23 AM

I have been a Nikon film shooter since early 90's and finally made the jump to digital with a D50 this week. I was debating between the 50 and the Oly E500 based on size and performance. Had planned on getting the 18-55 and 55-200 based on ok reviews, small size. But after reading more about 18-200 and not wanting to deal with dusty sensor issue any more than needed, I went with 18-55 as part of kit and got the 18-200VR. After watching for several months on photo sites and trying to make that final decision, I saw that B&H had the camera and lens in stock last week and said what the heck and ordered it.

The pros of the 55-200 would be the small size, good performance and the savings. Filter size would be same for both lens, saving costs for two polarizers, etc.

The pros of the 18-200 are of course the longer reach, better glass?, vr, and you could get by with just one lens. Filter size is 72 and more expensive.

In the few shots I took in the yard last night, I didn't see a big difference in the first shots with each. On a flower, the 18-200 may have been slightly better with the edges, while the 18-55 had more detail in flower center. Could have been focus or 3 minutes more light. No tripod used. On major crop shot and 8x10 print, they looked closer than I thought they would.

The 18-200 is a little bigger and heavier than I thought it would feel on camera. It is larger than my old 28-85 AF Nikkor, and shorter than my 70-210 Nikkor.

Hawaii Built · Jun 15, 2006, 10:32 AM

I think one of the "cons" of the VRII lens is that it is almost impossible to find! I went down to the local Ritz store last night and the salesperson had said that as of right now, they are filling orders from December.Wasn't that the release date for the lens? The sales person at the local CC said they'd be getting a shipment of lenses in a few weeks, highly unlikely though, this guy didn't seem to know too much.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

May 25, 2006, 7:24 AM	#23
Shakyhands Junior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19	Hello guys, I am recently bought a D200 and quiet impressed with it. and willing to add a tele zoom lens into my collections. I had a 12-24mm Tokina,a 18-70mm Nikon and a NIkon Prime lens 50mm/f1.8 . Comparing Tokina 24-200mm and Nikon 18-200 VR - anyone can given me an advise which one should I go for? thanks.......... Regrds,shakyhands

Jun 15, 2006, 9:23 AM	#24
jq Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47	I have been a Nikon film shooter since early 90's and finally made the jump to digital with a D50 this week. I was debating between the 50 and the Oly E500 based on size and performance. Had planned on getting the 18-55 and 55-200 based on ok reviews, small size. But after reading more about 18-200 and not wanting to deal with dusty sensor issue any more than needed, I went with 18-55 as part of kit and got the 18-200VR. After watching for several months on photo sites and trying to make that final decision, I saw that B&H had the camera and lens in stock last week and said what the heck and ordered it. The pros of the 55-200 would be the small size, good performance and the savings. Filter size would be same for both lens, saving costs for two polarizers, etc. The pros of the 18-200 are of course the longer reach, better glass?, vr, and you could get by with just one lens. Filter size is 72 and more expensive. In the few shots I took in the yard last night, I didn't see a big difference in the first shots with each. On a flower, the 18-200 may have been slightly better with the edges, while the 18-55 had more detail in flower center. Could have been focus or 3 minutes more light. No tripod used. On major crop shot and 8x10 print, they looked closer than I thought they would. The 18-200 is a little bigger and heavier than I thought it would feel on camera. It is larger than my old 28-85 AF Nikkor, and shorter than my 70-210 Nikkor.

Jun 15, 2006, 10:32 AM	#25
Hawaii Built Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 171	I think one of the "cons" of the VRII lens is that it is almost impossible to find! I went down to the local Ritz store last night and the salesperson had said that as of right now, they are filling orders from December.Wasn't that the release date for the lens? The sales person at the local CC said they'd be getting a shipment of lenses in a few weeks, highly unlikely though, this guy didn't seem to know too much.