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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 21, 2006, 11:24 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 27
Default

Alex 007 wrote:
Quote:
Hi Dee-ehn!

Seriously...,the 18/200 Nikon with VR-2 was issued to the market..., it's new for me...! how much cost in US money? & among the same lens Tamron or Sigma or Tokina...how much money you must add?.

Thanks,

ALEX 007 :|
I'm in the Netherlands... here, the Nikon VR lens is about 40% more expensive than the Tamron lens. I guess they are both priced just right (although I'd never get the Tamron lens).
Dee-ehn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2006, 10:17 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Alex 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ariel/Israel
Posts: 1,177
Default

Hi Dee-ehn!

Thank you for your reply, when will arrive to Israel, where I live, I will check the prices, & decide which one buy!

Be well.

ALEX 007:|
Alex 007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 4:46 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Alex Hi, I live in Israel also (cool)

I saw great reviews on the E-500, is it any good compare to the D50?
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2006, 2:43 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 27
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
Alex Hi, I live in Israel also (cool)

I saw great reviews on the E-500, is it any good compare to the D50?
Actually, the E500 is pretty noisy when using somewhat higher ISO levels. The D50 however is really low on noise, beating many more expensive cams (including the D70(s))!

This makes the D50 better useable in low light conditions. Something I really value. I own a D70 btw.
Dee-ehn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2006, 3:35 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Alex 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ariel/Israel
Posts: 1,177
Default

Hi Idan!

Very nice...so I'm NOT alone...Bravo!!!

My two sons own, Nikon cameras; the big one a D-70 with the last firmware, and my last one recently acquired in Holland a D-50 Kit + a Tamron 11/18mm ultra-wide zoom lens.

I love Minolta cameras, as since I was 12 years old, I received from my lovely passed away Daddy a Minolta Autocord DLR...similarly to Roleiflex/Rolleicord ones...120 size film with 12 square 6X6cm negatives, today I'm near 63 years old, I own a Maxxum 9xi film body with 5 lenses, so I added the digitally one a Dynax 5D kit brought here trough "Camera4less" in the central area of Israel.

Yes your Nikon D-70 is really a lovely digital camera...better that the Olympus 500!

Regards,

ALEX 007:|
Alex 007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 12:59 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Dee-ehn wrote
Quote:
I'm in the Netherlands... here, the Nikon VR lens is about 40% more expensive than the Tamron lens. I guess they are both priced just right (although I'd never get the Tamron lens).
only 40% more there? the Nikon 18-200 VR seems so be running around twice the price (so 100% more) here in the states ($700-$750 for the nikon vs $360-380 for the sigma/tamron versions w/o vr)

and while I like my nikon vr, i could certainly understand people who'd choose to save the extra $360 (or more if you find one used)... especially as $700 is more than the normal price for the D50 kit (w/18-55)

lacunae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 1:42 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Alex 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ariel/Israel
Posts: 1,177
Default

Dear Lacunae!

Such originally Nikon 18/200mmm cost more because is a Nikkor(Nikon) lens + the newer VR/2 stabilizer it's better that the "Originally" one; + 100% sure much better built!.

Second..., you also can buy the 2-DX body...and fit this lens, so the camera body will cost, more that the lens if you want to feel better...however a D-50 will do more or less the same quality photos that the Pro 2-DX body, for an a "Average/Ordinary/Unskilled" photographer.

Third, the Lens is what show you the final quality picture...the more expensive body, NO always; is so imperative...for my common sense of course!

Decide what is good for your budget or goal!

Cheers,

ALEX 007:|
Alex 007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 8:58 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Agree with ALEX 007that the lens is what make the pictures. Camera body are not all that much differences. The D50 very likely has less noise at high ISO (a must for birders) than the D70 and Canon 20D and 5D, according to some reports. Buying expensive Nikon do not guarantee Superior pictures quality. You pay for those extra buttons that suppose to make you think they worth all those extra $$$$! Camera manufacturers tend to use 'novice' and 'pro' in their ads to make people pay more. If all that is necessary are met by the D50 do not pay more. They get what you pay for!:idea:

I am from the Leica IIIf rangefinder era. All the new DSLR oftoday look like God sent.

This picture was taken with my D50 and VR80-400 while driving along the road. If I had a more expensive 'pro' model I do not think I would had got a better picture. It is nothing wrong for Nikon to make extra money as long as they are not my money. I desided on the VR80-400 before I desided on the D50. I shall always pay for first class glass and minimum features hi-quality cameras.

Alex 007 wrote:
Quote:
Dear Lacunae!

Such originally Nikon 18/200mmm cost more because is a Nikkor(Nikon) lens + the newer VR/2 stabilizer it's better that the "Originally" one; + 100% sure much better built!.

Second..., you also can buy the 2-DX body...and fit this lens, so the camera body will cost, more that the lens if you want to feel better...however a D-50 will do more or less the same quality photos that the Pro 2-DX body, for an a "Average/Ordinary/Unskilled" photographer.

Third, the Lens is what show you the final quality picture...the more expensive body, NO always; is so imperative...for my common sense of course!

Decide what is good for your budget or goal!

Cheers,

ALEX 007:|
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2006, 11:10 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

How do you compare between those two lenses:

1) Tamron AF 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 XR LD ASPHERICAL (IF) MACRO

2) Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC

Comparing Picture quality, Low light performance, Bokeh etc..
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2006, 6:45 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Can someone suggest a good 18-200mm lens as all-around lens.
Idan 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 9:12 PM.