Nikon 18-200

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by TCav

A hood isn't always necessary or even beneficial.

But sometimes it is.

And it doesn't ever hurt.

The more i ask, the more i read at least 90% of the photographers out there highly reccomends the use of the lens hood.
So again i say Ken Rockwell is a genious
i just reread his topic on lens hood and he said
Nikon 18-200 lens hood is a mircle, you can put on the hood, install your 72-77 step up ring, and i will be able to use my current polarizer ( down side is - "the hood will always be on" ) personally no big deal.

Dave
T&T

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by dafiryde

The more i ask, the more i read at least 90% of the photographers out there highly reccomends the use of the lens hood.
So again i say Ken Rockwell is a genious
i just reread his topic on lens hood and he said
Nikon 18-200 lens hood is a mircle, you can put on the hood, install your 72-77 step up ring, and i will be able to use my current polarizer ( down side is - "the hood will always be on" ) personally no big deal.

Dave
T&T

Don't get too crazy...Rockwell is not exactly a genius, and if you read enough, you'll find tons of contradictions and lots of hyperbole. I use the 18-200 on my D5k 90% of the time, and the hood is always on, either on backwards for storage, or in use when I'm shooting. The only minus is you have to either use it or take it off as you can't easily manually focus when it is on in the storage position.

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by rjseeney

Don't get too crazy...Rockwell is not exactly a genius, and if you read enough, you'll find tons of contradictions and lots of hyperbole. I use the 18-200 on my D5k 90% of the time, and the hood is always on, either on backwards for storage, or in use when I'm shooting. The only minus is you have to either use it or take it off as you can't easily manually focus when it is on in the storage position.

but he is a genious to show me how i can use my current polarizer

Dave
T&T

[condorman]

Hi Guy's, very interesting this post. I'm looking to buy 1 of these lenses and have it as my only lens on a d5000. I'm wondering how the autofocus speed compares to a 18-55 vr. I tried the 18-55 in the shop and I thought it was quite slow to focus. Hope you don't mind me jumping in.
Mark

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by condorman

Hi Guy's, very interesting this post. I'm looking to buy 1 of these lenses and have it as my only lens on a d5000. I'm wondering how the autofocus speed compares to a 18-55 vr. I tried the 18-55 in the shop and I thought it was quite slow to focus. Hope you don't mind me jumping in.
Mark

The 18-200 stays on my D5k as part of my carry everywhere kit. I have the original version of the lens, so I can't speak about the newer version. It is not a speed demon, and I don't use it for action shots, but it focuses quick enough. It struggles sometimes in low light or low contrast, but I'm happy with the lens. I have the 18-55 but never use it, so I can't speak about its speed.

[peterbj7]

Only one comment about the lens, which is that someone I know here (Belize) found hers growing fungus inside when it was around 18 months old. Nikon condemned the lens and didn't even offer her a "trade-in" value, which I thought was a bit rough. Certainly puts me off Nikon.

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by peterbj7

Only one comment about the lens, which is that someone I know here (Belize) found hers growing fungus inside when it was around 18 months old. Nikon condemned the lens and didn't even offer her a "trade-in" value, which I thought was a bit rough. Certainly puts me off Nikon.

Fungus isn't a manufacturing defect or a problem the Nikon or any camera lens maker will offer warranty or replacement for. Fungus occurs when lenses aren't properly stored in humid environments (like Belize). Unless fungus is caught early, the lens is pretty much toast. If Nikon can't repair it and it's a problem caused (knowingly or unknowingly) by the customer, why would (or should they) offer to give the customer anything?? If you run your car off the road, the car maker isn't going to replace it. I can guarantee Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc isn't going to replace a fungus infested lens either.

[peterbj7]

It isn't a manufacturing defect as such, but some lenses are less well sealed so are more prone to the problem when in an appropriate environment. Four Nikkor zoom lenses owned by various people here have died from fungus in the past 2.5 years. I've had my Canon "L" lenses much longer in the same environment and they're all still perfect. Perhaps I'm more careful with them, but even so.....

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by condorman

Hi Guy's, very interesting this post. I'm looking to buy 1 of these lenses and have it as my only lens on a d5000. I'm wondering how the autofocus speed compares to a 18-55 vr. I tried the 18-55 in the shop and I thought it was quite slow to focus. Hope you don't mind me jumping in.
Mark

when i was converted from Pentax to Nikon i read a bit and found many spoke good of the D90 with 18-200 and 35 1.8 for low light. which i bought, and was pleased. after some time many said that two lens from 18-200 would give me better quality, so i wipped out my credit card and got the 17-55/2.8 and the 70-300vr and a D300s and gave the old kit to my daughter who became very pleased.
NOW i became not so pleased, so once again i wipped out my credit card and bought another 18-200 and now i am very pleased.
TO BE HONEST, i have not printed a pic in over 10 years, i aint no pro, i dont plan to work for national geographic., but i love taking pictures of my past life. the quality of the pics i got from the 17-55 and the 18-200 look the same to me even zoomed to 200% on my 23" computer screen, i am yet to see the softness and poor quality that some talk of. i am a much happier camper with the 18-200,
- i dont miss a shot because of changing lenses
- there is less dust going on my sensor, personally i never had a problem with that and in this small island there is always dust, rain, sea blast,sand to deal with.
- of the both 18-200 that i owned, both focused fast and i mean fast, not demon speed but at least 200 times faster than the Pentax K20D with 16-50/2.8
- some claim its no good in low light, well both of mine worked so great that i never really had to use the 35, that lens only got used if i force myself to use it, the 18-200 took care of the situation in extreamly low light levels and am talking indoors at disney's theme parks and there it is low light levels.
For me Photography is for capturing those precious moments in life .

i will give you an example
at disney world this summer just outside its a small world i noticed a elderly gentleman on my side with a large lowepro backpack that looked liked it was stuffed with everthing he owns, you could have seen the weight by the way the bag was sagging even though he had on the waist strap real tight, the day was hot and very humid, and there was sweat running from every part of him, to top it off he also had a full size tripod attached to it, now when his grand daughter started dancing to the music that plays constantly outside that show his wife said, honey look take a picture, so he raised up his camera but realised he had on the wrong lens, not being able to back up as he was in the line, he had to take off the pack and rest it on the ground, while leaning over to lay it down the monopod that he had slung around his neck swung foward and struck him in the face, all you could hear now was the dancing stopped and no picture of that moment was taken.

Dave
T&T

[dafiryde]

Originally Posted by rjseeney

Don't get too crazy...Rockwell is not exactly a genius, and if you read enough, you'll find tons of contradictions and lots of hyperbole. I use the 18-200 on my D5k 90% of the time, and the hood is always on, either on backwards for storage, or in use when I'm shooting. The only minus is you have to either use it or take it off as you can't easily manually focus when it is on in the storage position.

i was just happy to find out from him how i could have avoided buying another filter.
and its true he is wacky , he puts his foot in his mouth too many times but he does give some good info and humor


Dave
T&T