 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007New Nikon D40x and a new lens
Hi, Nikon has announced the D40x: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=917 and a new 55-200 VR lens: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > and a new 55-200 VR lens: > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 A bit slow isn't it? > > and a new 55-200 VR lens: > > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 > > A bit slow isn't it? For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. Check your bank roll and make your decision. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it > to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. > > If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding > beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00. I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less bucks than the full frame version. >> If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding >> beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about >> 3000.00. > > I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less > bucks than the full frame version. Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just the way it is. Rita > > > If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR > > > riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I > like my 70-200 just the way it is. I would like to see a lighter version. Signature-Mike > > I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less > > bucks than the full frame version. > > Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you > want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just > the way it is. Not sure what you mean about the 18-200 VR. The 70-200 is a big expensive lens. I'm wondering if they can make one that's smaller and more affordable that's equally fast, for the DX format. This new 55-200 is a low cost VR tele that's too slow to be interesting, but that they chose DX format for it indicates there were some savings from doing so. Even a 70-200/4 VR would be of some interest. I missed out on a chance to get a 300/2.8 ED MF for a very low price but I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary. > I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld > indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary. Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo. About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can add the 1.4 50 for about 200.00 for low light interiors at parties. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo. > About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can > add the 1.4 50 for about 200.00 for low light interiors at parties. I keep wanting to know if VR helps at those shorter focal lengths. I have a 50/1.4 MF and 50/1.8 AF so I don't feel likely to buy a 50/1.4 AF. But if they made a 50/1.4 AF-S VR that gave an extra stop or two of handheld steadiness, I'd be pretty interested. Or a 58/1.2 AF-S VR Noct, that would probably send Rita into heaven. >> Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo. >> About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of handheld steadiness, I'd be pretty interested. Or a 58/1.2 AF-S > VR Noct, that would probably send Rita into heaven. Sadly, VR/IS has absolutely no benefit at 50mm and wider. There has yet to be any credible evidence from the lens manufacturers or anyone in these forums that has proven it does. As for an AF-S VR Noct, NO WAY! I wouldn't want a good performing lens crippled like that. I wouldn't buy one since some things were never meant to be changed. Rita > Sadly, VR/IS has absolutely no benefit at 50mm and wider. There has yet to > be any credible evidence from the lens manufacturers or anyone in these > forums that has proven it does. Ah, ok. 85/1.4 VR may also be pushing it then. 135/2.0 VR, maybe. The 200/2.0 VR is fantastic but it's just for specialists really. I'd actually been keeping an eye out for a 180/2.8 in preference to an 80-200/2.8 but neither of those have VR. > Ah, ok. 85/1.4 VR may also be pushing it then. Pushing what? >135/2.0 VR, maybe. > The 200/2.0 VR is fantastic but it's just for specialists really. > I'd actually been keeping an eye out for a 180/2.8 in preference to > an 80-200/2.8 but neither of those have VR. Wait until Nikon caves in and introduces a VR camera body then. Bound to happen sooner or later. (probably later :-) MrT. > Sadly, VR/IS has absolutely no benefit at 50mm and wider. What a load of crap! At ANY given aperture, and ANY given focal length, VR/IS will allow lower shutter speeds than without, when you don't wish to use a tripod. (assuming subject motion doesn't create a bigger problem of course) Therefore I can see that a 50mm f1.4 VR/IS lens would be useful to someone. Whether *you* would personally wish to pay for it is another matter entirely. >There has yet to > be any credible evidence from the lens manufacturers or anyone in these > forums that has proven it does. And you can provide evidence that it doesn't? I have certainly taken indoor *wide angle* night shots hand held, sans flash, that were otherwise useless at the same settings, but totally adequate when using IS. >As for an AF-S VR Noct, NO WAY! I wouldn't >want a good performing lens crippled like that. Assuming it had an off switch (as they all do) how would it be crippled? (extra weight maybe?) >I wouldn't buy one since >some things were never meant to be changed. So the real reason is you are a luddite? In my case it would probably just be the extra expense that would stop me :-) Fortunately for those with a real need, the in camera stabilisation method works with ANY lens. MrT. >> Sadly, VR/IS has absolutely no benefit at 50mm and wider. > > What a load of crap! At ANY given aperture, and ANY given focal > length, VR/IS will allow lower shutter speeds than without, when you > don't wish to use a tripod. (assuming subject motion doesn't create a > bigger problem of course) Right! It's easy enough for you to do a side-by-side test to prove this to yourself. Use good handholding technique and snap away with VR/IS on and off. Of course you will tell us what you find? > Therefore I can see that a 50mm f1.4 VR/IS lens would be useful to > someone. Whether *you* would personally wish to pay for it is another > matter entirely. Like who would pay to have a tandem axle installed in a Ferrari? >> There has yet to >> be any credible evidence from the lens manufacturers or anyone in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flash, that were otherwise useless at the same settings, but totally > adequate when using IS. Keep everything equal and take two shots with VR/IS on and off and see if you can pick the pic that was image stabilized. For that matter take 10 and have a friend change the switch setting without telling you. I'll bet you couldn't pick the right pic for the corresponding setting. >> As for an AF-S VR Noct, NO WAY! I wouldn't >> want a good performing lens crippled like that. > > Assuming it had an off switch (as they all do) how would it be > crippled? (extra weight maybe?) It would change the whole geometry and characteristics of the lens. >> I wouldn't buy one since >> some things were never meant to be changed. > > So the real reason is you are a luddite? > In my case it would probably just be the extra expense that would > stop me :-) The real reason is some things benefit from change and some things don't. If the change or "update" doesn't benefit me, the customer, what is the point of buying it? > Fortunately for those with a real need, the in camera stabilisation > method works with ANY lens. Are we talking about dSLRs or P&S? Rita > >> Sadly, VR/IS has absolutely no benefit at 50mm and wider. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yourself. Use good handholding technique and snap away with VR/IS on and > off. Of course you will tell us what you find? Have and did already. > > Therefore I can see that a 50mm f1.4 VR/IS lens would be useful to > > someone. Whether *you* would personally wish to pay for it is another > > matter entirely. > > Like who would pay to have a tandem axle installed in a Ferrari? And someone did just that! An American made a stretch Ferrari with dual rear axles. But I see you have no interest in being logical. > > And you can provide evidence that it doesn't? > > I have certainly taken indoor *wide angle* night shots hand held, sans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have a friend change the switch setting without telling you. I'll bet you > couldn't pick the right pic for the corresponding setting. And as I already said, can and did. And love to know your reason why it shouldn't work with shorter lenses? > The real reason is some things benefit from change and some things don't. > If the change or "update" doesn't benefit me, the customer, what is the > point of buying it? Of course, but the change may be an improvement, and it may benefit someone else who is prepared to pay for it. You get to make your own choices. > > Fortunately for those with a real need, the in camera stabilisation > > method works with ANY lens. > > Are we talking about dSLRs or P&S? DSLR's like the KM/Sony and the new Olympus. MrT. >> Right! It's easy enough for you to do a side-by-side test to prove >> this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have and did already. And? >>> Therefore I can see that a 50mm f1.4 VR/IS lens would be useful to >>> someone. Whether *you* would personally wish to pay for it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dual rear axles. > But I see you have no interest in being logical. What's logical about a stretch Ferrari? Why castrate a nice car when they could have produced the same stupidity with a Hummer? >> couldn't pick the right pic for the corresponding setting. > > And as I already said, can and did. > And love to know your reason why it shouldn't work with shorter > lenses? Some how I doubt you can, but.... >> The real reason is some things benefit from change and some things >> don't. If the change or "update" doesn't benefit me, the customer, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone else who is prepared to pay for it. > You get to make your own choices. No, I don't get to make the choice if the original is discontinued. >>> Fortunately for those with a real need, the in camera stabilisation >>> method works with ANY lens. >> >> Are we talking about dSLRs or P&S? > > DSLR's like the KM/Sony and the new Olympus. What are they? Rita >> Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo. >> About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > handheld steadiness, I'd be pretty interested. Or a 58/1.2 AF-S VR Noct, > that would probably send Rita into heaven. Somebody who has the 18-200 VR can test that fairly easily. I agree on the appeal of VR for low-light work; it's strange they don't make *any* lenses really good for that. >> I keep wanting to know if VR helps at those shorter focal lengths. I >> have a 50/1.4 MF and 50/1.8 AF so I don't feel likely to buy a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Somebody who has the 18-200 VR can test that fairly easily. I did and it doesn't. > I agree on the appeal of VR for low-light work; it's strange they > don't make *any* lenses really good for that. Same with muscle cars, "there's no replacement for displacement." Rita > I agree on the appeal of VR for low-light work; it's strange they don't > make *any* lenses really good for that. The 200mm f/2 VR has been pointed out. I overlooked that, it's certainly in the class. It's a bit long a and a lot expensive for *me*, but that's a different problem. >> Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR >> unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that they chose DX format for it indicates there were some savings > from doing so. Even a 70-200/4 VR would be of some interest. I have both the 18-200 and the 70-200, and yes the 70-200 is a big heavy expensive lens with decent light gathering qualities and the 18-200 is not very good unless you are in highly lit areas. The little bit of weight and size savings of crippling this lens into a DX format would have very little financial gain for Nikon and no performance gains for its customers. > I missed out on a chance to get a 300/2.8 ED MF for a very low price > but I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld > indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary. There will be more 300s on the used market, don't sweat it. I really like my 70-200 indoors. Rita >>> If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding >>> beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Really, what's the point? Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would* save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX -- and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the 70-200 on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though). (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens which is slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be faster and VR would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next* quarter I can consider the 70-200 VR as well.) > We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless > you > want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 > just > the way it is. The 18-200 is no doubt an okay lens for outdoor scenic snapshots. It's *far* too slow for any kind of available light work, though; two stops slower where it matters (the long end, where you need higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake problems). Remember, they're *both* VR. >>>> If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding >>>> beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next* quarter I can > consider the 70-200 VR as well.) But wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 VR lens, even if optimized for digital sensors, be just as big, heavy and expensive as a full frame version? Not to mention an f2 version. I'm not sure what could be short cutted to get it smaller and cheaper. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would* > save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was > always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX > -- and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the > 70-200 on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though). My guess is you would hit the point of diminishing returns and it would be impractical and uneconomical to go DX with this beast. If you want f/2 you might like the 200/2 Nikkor, they now have a VR version. > (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, > and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens > which is slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old > Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be > faster and VR would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus > *next* quarter I can consider the 70-200 VR as well.) Me, I would have gone with the 70-200 first. In all honesty (I can't believe I'm saying this) the 18-70 really isn't bad for a DX lens, especially for the price. I wonder why you're having flare problems. I never noticed this with mine when I used it long ago. In my opinion the 18-70 is far superior to the 18-200VR. >> We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless >> you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shutter speeds to avoid camera shake problems). Remember, they're > *both* VR. That was my only complaint with my 18-70. I expected the 18-200 to be the same, which would have made it a decent walk around lens, but I was disappointed. Rita >> Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would* >> save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > impractical and uneconomical to go DX with this beast. If you want f/2 you > might like the 200/2 Nikkor, they now have a VR version. It's a bit long for my low-light environment, mostly. And not cheap of course, but then no good lenses seem to be cheap for some reason. (Well, except perhaps a 50mm f/1.4 here and there). I may want to go for a good 135/2 AF-S, if one turns up (right now I'm using the old AI); the DC one doesn't really look like what I want. >> (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, >> and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > never noticed this with mine when I used it long ago. In my opinion the > 18-70 is far superior to the 18-200VR. Well, we shall see what we shall see, when I have it in my hands to work with. I ended up deciding based on the amount of time I spend using my current 80-200 f/2.8 -- which is very little in the last 5 years. And I did also consider the 17-35 semi-seriously (I guess I'd have used it in conjunction with my existing Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro), but I really think I'd be going wider than 28 and longer than 35 often enough that that combo would drive me crazy. I may be seeing some kind of sample problem with my 18-70 flare issue. >>> We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless >>> you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > same, which would have made it a decent walk around lens, but I was > disappointed. I wonder if we're seeing significant sample variation on these consumer-grade lenses? (One of my big objections to the objective test review sites is that they don't get say 5 samples through normal retail channels and *compare* them. Of course the economics of that are pretty disastrous, but without that one of the most important quality measures isn't being studied.) >> That was my only complaint with my 18-70. I expected the 18-200 to >> be the same, which would have made it a decent walk around lens, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are pretty disastrous, but without that one of the most important > quality measures isn't being studied.) I agree, and I don't think it is just limited to consumer grade lenses. A few years back the 17-55/2.8 had a lot of QA problems that are documented on the net. The early 70-200VRs had a few issues as well. I'm sure these issues are now history and shouldn't be a concern. If buying any lens new just makes sure you have a return option. And buy any used lens cheap enough so you can flip it for a decent profit should you not like it. Rita >>> (I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, >>> and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I may be seeing some kind of sample problem with my 18-70 flare issue. Well, on initial Q&D playing, the 17-55mm is not showing up flare problems for me, even when I try a deliberately fairly nasty situation. I'll have to haul the 18-70 around at the same time, and shoot a few things with both, to kinda make clearer what the relative behavior is on flare. <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2007/0300x-misc?pic=d db%2020070307%20010-009> And, elsewhere on the page that photo is from, cute cats! (also with the 17-55). Use the "up" link on the page linked above. Many of my previous flare problems with the 18-70 were around the same window Arwen is sleeping in, but of course the conditions are different every day. > And, elsewhere on the page that photo is from, cute cats! (also with > the 17-55). Use the "up" link on the page linked above. > > Many of my previous flare problems with the 18-70 were around the same > window Arwen is sleeping in, but of course the conditions are > different every day. I'm glad the 17-55/2.8 is working out for you. The cats are very nice. Thanks for sharing. Rita > > For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it > > to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less > bucks than the full frame version. The market for those two lenses is entirely different. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less > bucks than the full frame version. Can? of course. Will? doubtful. MrT. >> > and a new 55-200 VR lens: >> > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it > to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price. Don't we have enough poor-performing lenses in the world already? > >> > and a new 55-200 VR lens: > >> > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't we have enough poor-performing lenses in the world already? No doubt, but Nikon apparently thinks they need something to extend the 18-55 kit lens that comes with the D50 and D40. People who are happy with that lens will be happy with the new one and because they can change lenses they justify getting a DSLR rather than one of the big zoom P&S's. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > > Don't we have enough poor-performing lenses in the world already? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > change lenses they justify getting a DSLR rather than one of the big > zoom P&S's. And the chances are quite good that it will outperform those P&S's anyway, making it a good choice for some on a "mid range" budget. MrT. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wayne Canadian price is MSRP: w/18~135 lens: $1219.99, w/18~55 II $999.99, body only $919.99. > Nikon has announced the D40x:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=917 ...thus dropping one more turd on the pile. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.