Nikon D60 owners?

snal":2f0gsmkt said:
flapbreaker":2f0gsmkt said:
Well, I ordered a D40 and the 18-200mm VR lens. Can't wait. It should be worth the premium for the lens just so I don't have to do any switching.
Click to expand...

Now doggone it...you're gonna cause me to order one of those 18-200's :lol:
I've wanted one for years...back when they were in short supply and priced at $1200 if you could find one!
Amazon now has them for $679. Pretty easy to justify when it all but erases the need to ever expose the camera to internal dust, and does away with the need for at least 2 lenses.

Hmmmm? anybody wanna buy some Nikon film cameras!?
Click to expand...

If you don't mind refurbished equipement, Adorama.com is selling some Nikon factory refurbished ones for $599. That's what I ordered. Adorama is a very reputable online site. There are a ton of scam sights out there when it comes to electronics but they are not one of them. I called them to order mine and I asked if I chose the 3-5 day shipping instead of the 5-9 day free shipping if it would get here faster and he said it would be a waste of money.

http://www.adorama.com/NK18200DXR.html? ... item_no=14
 
Sea Wolf":2kec2lhy said:
Can that 18-200 mm lens be used for macro worK?

(For those who don't know, macro photography is extreme close up work, like flowers, coins, stamps, etc.)

Joe. :teeth :thup
Click to expand...

Yes it can. Probably not as good as a true macro lens but I hear positive things about it.

Here is a snipet from http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

"4.) I can leave my macro at home. My 18-200mm focuses as close as I need without clumsy macro settings. My first 200mm lens, a manual-focus T-mount Vivitar, only focused as close as 12 feet! My 80 - 200 AFS only makes it to 5 feet. Today my 18-200mm VR focuses as close as 8 inches from the front of the lens at 200mm! Nikon's spec of 20" is the distance from the subject to the image plane, which is the back of the camera, not the front of the lens. At 200mm the lens extends almost to the subject! "
 
Hmmmmm.

I'll have to do some investigating with mine. I was under the impression it wouldn't do macro. I almost never take those kinds of pictures, but perhaps I was wrong about this lens and it does something extra I hadn't bargained for. I'm sure it would be handy once in a while.

Jeff
 
It is pretty good in the macro mode, but there is some barrel distortion at 18... I prefer my 17-35 2.8 or 14-24 2.8 when I'm required to be picky -- but the 18-200 VR is hard to beat as an all around "do everything" lens. And cheeep! (relatively)

Dusty
 
Ok...I decided to go the cheap route, at least that was the plan. I went to Ritz to get the 55-200 VR. With 3 D70 bodies and the 18-55 and 18-70 lenses...it was a better match for me, not to mention fitting my budget better.
The plan worked well until I got to the camera store. I shot a few frames with the 55-200 VR. the 18-200 VR and the 70-300 VRII. I ended up with the 70-300 VRII., which was mid-priced between the 55-200 and 18-200.
I've been amazed at the fact that I can repeatedly get very sharp, (handheld!) pics at 300mm (450mm) f8 at 1/30sec!
The VRII has a seperate switch that allows VR even when panning. It's teaching me to shoot mainly aperature priority to get maximum depth of field...and I love it!
 
Snal, that's great. I just go my camera the other day and am really impressed with the quality of the pictures that come out of it. I have a lot to learn though but that's part of the fun.
 
I do not have any filters for my lens yet. I figure a guy should probably at least have a UV filter to protect the lens. Anyone routinely use a polarized lens? Does brand matter?
 
I use UV filters only right now, most of the filter effects can be done in photoshop, but I would like to have a polarizing filter.

Ken Rockwell has some great tips on setting up your new camera, especially if you like the vivid colors as found on fuji film (I do!)

flapbreaker":1p9dxete said:
I do not have any filters for my lens yet. I figure a guy should probably at least have a UV filter to protect the lens. Anyone routinely use a polarized lens? Does brand matter?
Click to expand...
 
A polarizing filter is a great accessory and you can't duplicate it in software after the shot. It can see through some window reflections and the reflective surface of the water and do some other enhancing. Be careful to get the right type. Read about them at dpreview.com or a similar review site. Linear vs circular is one variable to read about.

Buy one. It will make many pictures look MUCH better.

Jeff
 
Although I am a Canon guy, the circular polarizer is definately worth having for marine use. It cuts glare, deepens the sky, and even in folage will make a world of difference. Sorry to disagree, but these are not things (other than blue sky) which you can photo shop.

I personally take care of my lenses and don't use UV filters. You have a $1000 lense and put a $50 filter over it??? does not make a lot of sense. I also have back up cameras for risky use---or even for hiking. My wife has an 8 meg pixel Nikon point and shoot (has all of the programs)--I have several Cannon similar cameras. These are the ones which go on the trail or in the dink. I just don't want to risk a couple of grand worth of cameras in risky situations--and save the good cameras for shots from the boat, or on land with tripod etc.

Also think of the weight of the long lenses. I recently took about 800 photos at our college 50th reunion (plus several hours of video). Lugging several bodies with "L" glass lenses get pretty heavy and tiring. Consider using the kit type of lense for the carry around lense--and the extreme telephoto when only essntial---for example I use a tripod with my large telephoto lenses. There is a lot of difference between the high quality single focal length 500 mm lense and the zoom 18 to 200-Nikon or Canon. Yes the VR or stabalizing system helps hand held--but for the best photos, the tripod cannot be beat.

Just some alternate thoughts on lenses and Camera bodies.
 
Bob,

Some thoughts:

I think you slightly mis-read one or both of the two previous posts before you. The posts acknowledged that the polarizing filter effect cannot be done in post-processing. Once you've let the glare in and lost the detail, the game is over.

Also, while it's true that adding another element in front of an expensive lens can reduce image quality, it's also true that a well-made UV filter can be MUCH less expensive than a well-made lens. The filter only has to be flat and have a good A/R coating. No moving parts. Relatively easy and cheap compared to the complications of designing a moving element lens system with all the design tradeoffs, compromises and high precision, carefully aligned moving parts.

Plus, if you're going to be cleaning the lens surface once in a while over the years, it can eventually be damaged. Better to toss a $50 filter every few years than a $600 lens. You can always remove the filter if you're taking "serious" pictures, but for just walking around and taking snapshots and other risky field use, a filter can be a good compromise. I'll dust and clean a filter a lot more often than I'll mess with the surface of a lens.

All of this stuff is just opinions, of course. You pays your money and you takes your chances. You gotta do what makes you the most comfortable. I wonder what the dpreview type of websites say about protective filters. I haven't read up on the topic. I wouldn't buy a cheap off-brand one, though.

Lately, I've just been leaving the polarizer on the lens most all the time.

Jeff
 
....and I coulda been more clear in my post.

BTW...the wife was getting jealous of my DSLRs, she has a Canon point and shoot that takes great pics, but has horrible shutter lag....scored a NIB D50 for her tonight for $350 with a 28-80mm G lens. The lens is sharper than I expected, and fast focusing. It doesn't have the provision for a hard LCD protector, but the peel-off stuph is better than nothing.
 
Back
Top