Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 23, 2007, 5:25 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Default

This may be a silly question (given the prices involved) but hey, it's my first post and I have a little leniency coming!

OK... I'm on the verge of buying the Nikon D40. Really enjoyed playing around with the camera, but the kit lens isn't fabulous. I'm going to buy a more versatile lens, and it's down to the Nikkor 18-200 (3.5-5.6) VR or the Tamron 18-250 (3.5-6.3). I'm loooking for opinions on whether or not Nikkor's VR technology makes it worth sacrificing the (significant) additional zoom and spending nearly twice as much (~$900 for the Nikkor vs. ~$500 for the Tamron). Although they could both stand to be a bit faster, I don't care much about the aperture difference on the tight end (5.6 vs. 6.3).

Nikon claims the "VR II system offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 4 stops faster" whatever that means. I can imagine that at full zoom, any image stabilization technology could be a big boon, but is it worth $400 and ~75mm zoom?

Thoughts? Thanks a bunch.

-K
Kabeyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 23, 2007, 8:39 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Kabeyun-

I have used Nikkor VR lenses before and in truth I can tell you, thatthe Nikon VR system really does work quite well. I now have a Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens on order (a $(US) 520.00 investment) and I will be happy to post sample photos taken with that lens with my D-50, as soon as I receive it.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 11:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 314
Default

Keep in mind that if you do buy the D40, the autofocus will not work with the Tamron.

The D40 only has AF capability for lens-driven AF lenses, i.e., Nikon's AF-I and AF-S lenses, and Sigma's HSM lenses. All others are purely manual focus on the D40.

Now whether that means you should reconsider buying the D40 or reconsider buying the Tamron, I don't know, but the lack of AF means I would not recommend that combination.
thebac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2007, 10:22 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Default

Good call. I just confirmed this with Tamron. Dang!
I will say that their website refers to this lens as "IF" or internal focusing. Since this doesn't mean the lens has a focusing motor, I have no idea what this means. Seems a bit misleading to me.

That makes the choice interesting: the expensive Nikkor 18-200 VR or the Sigma 18-200 without VR. mtclimber boiches for VR lenses. I just need to grapple with the added cost vs. potential benefit, now that zoom would be the same.

Thanks guys.

-K

P.S. The Tamron rep said she'd heard "rumors" that they'll be making an AF-D lens. We'll see...
Kabeyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2007, 12:00 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Kabeyun wrote:
Quote:
That makes the choice interesting: the expensive Nikkor 18-200 VR or the Sigma 18-200 without VR. mtclimber boiches for VR lenses. I just need to grapple with the added cost vs. potential benefit, now that zoom would be the same.
Sigma anounced a VR 18-200 (OS, they call it) in September last year, but I haven't seen any sign of it since.

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2007, 12:26 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
Sigma anounced a VR 18-200 (OS, they call it) in September last year, but I haven't seen any sign of it since.

Keith.
Should be coming out in March.
If image stabilization is equivalent, I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to spend more (I don't know how mmuch the Sigma will cost, but I'm sure it'll be less than the Nikkor) for a slightly faster lens (5.6 vs. 6.3).

-K
Kabeyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2007, 6:26 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I too was looking for an alternative lens to the Nikkor 18-200mm VR. So, I opted to try the Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens, because I alread own the Nikkor 18-70mm and the Nikkor 12-24mm lens.

Then lens arrived today. It is larger (in length) than I had hoped for, but it can still be a viable "walk around" lens, and therefore a substitute for the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens. In addition it was readily available and cost $300 less.

Attached is a sample photo taken with my Nikon D-50 using the Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens.

MT/Sarah
Attached Images
 
mtclimber 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 2:19 AM.