Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   Nikon 18-200 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/nikon-18-200-a-180171/)

dafiryde Nov 17, 2010 9:36 PM

Nikon 18-200
 
this lens is great but is it worthy of a $140 polarizing filter
lens hood is almost a hood , Ken Rockwell claims he never un wrapped his
what do you think

Dave
T&T

Wizzard0003 Nov 18, 2010 12:09 AM

It really isn't a case of whether the lens is worth the filter but rather if using
a polorizer is worth it to you...

Do you have need for a polorizer when using that lens...?

A filter of any kind isn't worth any price if you don't need or use it... ;)

TCav Nov 18, 2010 2:00 AM

The 18-200 is pretty dim to start with. A polarizing filter will cut down on the light some more. If you can handle it, fine.

Another consideration is that, at wide angles, polarizing filters can cause vignetting.

So the question is this: Can you handle the polarizing filter?

And as far as the lens hood goes, it protects the lens and your images from things where nothing else will work. So why not?

Wingman Nov 18, 2010 5:57 AM

I spent my money on a Cokin system thatwith an adaptor gives me the flexibility to use it with lenses of different sizes! Polarizers for the large OD lenses can get costly!

dafiryde Nov 18, 2010 5:23 PM

The thing is, dont laugh at me please. but i bought a hoya pro1 for my 17-55 for $140,
i recently rebought a 18-200 of which proved itself worthy to keep for vacation photos, which so happens that is the only time i can get a chance to take a photo
last month i found it hard to shell out another $140 to get one for the 18-200 so i bought a stepup ring for $15 unfortunately i can no longer use the hood when i am using the filter
so hence my question on the hood.

just my 2 cents
a lot of people out there claims the 18-200 to be a slow lens in dim light and a compramize in quality being such a big zoom.
but in fact my last one and this new one never once showed any lagging in some of the lowest light conditions i have shot in, and i am talking indoor shots, dim ligting, no flash, focus assist beam turned off, ( which i could have never have figured why nikon put it there as the lens blocks 3/4 of the light )
an the quality, personally to me they look great even zoomed to 200% on view nx

Dave
T&T

deadshot Nov 20, 2010 11:27 AM

Hi,
Regarding the hood question,some while back I was in St Catherines Palace St Petersburgh.
Which was very busy,I had my 18-200 outfit around my neck when a large woman carrying a case dashed past giving my lens hood one hell of a whack .Had I not had it on she would have missed the lens altogether.So I took it of after that and have never put it on,I shade with my left hand.( with Ken R on this).Sometimes I have to clone or crop out a bit of hand but thats no big deal.
My complaint is that if the hood slipped on and off easily like my old Canon hood did I might be tempted to put it on in certain circumstances but my one is really difficult to take off and harder to get back on.
As far as the lens being slow,I dont find that a problem as the D5000 at high ISO is superb plus the stabilisation is amazing.
A Nikor F2.8 18-300mm would be good for me but I would have to sell my house to buy it,oh! I nearly forgot the divorce as well.:-)

rjseeney Nov 20, 2010 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadshot (Post 1168649)
Hi,
Regarding the hood question,some while back I was in St Catherines Palace St Petersburgh.
Which was very busy,I had my 18-200 outfit around my neck when a large woman carrying a case dashed past giving my lens hood one hell of a whack .Had I not had it on she would have missed the lens altogether.So I took it of after that and have never put it on,I shade with my left hand.( with Ken R on this).Sometimes I have to clone or crop out a bit of hand but thats no big deal.
My complaint is that if the hood slipped on and off easily like my old Canon hood did I might be tempted to put it on in certain circumstances but my one is really difficult to take off and harder to get back on.

I'm sure the hood absorbed the impact and no damage was done to the lens. I think shooting one handed using my off hand to act as poor imitation of a hood is a much worse option than the off chance someone may bump into my lens hood and do no damage.

deadshot Nov 22, 2010 5:50 AM

Just to clarify things, I do not hold the camera with one hand as I can easily get my thumb and forefinger around the lens to support it, also I cant recall getting any shots with Sun flare on them using this method.
As I said before if the hood went on and came off easily I might put it on for some shots. My Canon hood had a squeeze the sides fit,very easy,this Nikon hood takes a lot to twist it on and off. I certainly dont want to leave it on all the time,as imho it makes my outfit too cumbersome.
Some years back I had a fold in/out 3 position rubber hood that was good, now that did offer protection as it wasnt hard and rigid like my Nikon one.

dafiryde Nov 22, 2010 9:10 AM

some say hood offer lens protection, - i have been shooting with slr's for over 30 years now and i have never even gotten a minor scratch on the front element. and if you saw the contitions or how i treat my equipment you would be supprised. i baby nothing.
some say hoods prevent lens flare, - i just went over thousands of pics and saw none with lens flare.
some say hoods give better contrast and overall pics, - i took double pics this week one with and one without, asked a friend to be the judge and she replied, why did you take 2 pictures of each thing. i said no look closer and again she went over them them even at 100% and still said there is no difference.
so again i ask,
is a hood necessary ?
is Ken Rockwell right ?

Dave
T&T

TCav Nov 22, 2010 9:21 AM

A hood isn't always necessary or even beneficial.

But sometimes it is.

And it doesn't ever hurt.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.