 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX Zoom Action
I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. Is this normal for this particular model? Has anyone noticed this resistance in zoom action? Jake Mine does that. It's good feedback.  SignatureJoan http://joan.colley.name:85 :I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom : action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. : Is this normal for this particular model? Has anyone noticed this resistance : in zoom action? : : Jake > Mine does that. It's good feedback. By feedback, do you mean that it has a high-pitched whistle? > "Joan" <Joan@home.tosh> wrote in message > >>Mine does that. It's good feedback. > > By feedback, do you mean that it has a high-pitched whistle? Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly, that's considered good. I dont't understand. How does uneven zoom action(more force is needed to turn the zoom ring past around 70mm) help with manual-focusing? Jake >> "Joan" <Joan@home.tosh> wrote in message >>>Mine does that. It's good feedback. >> >> By feedback, do you mean that it has a high-pitched whistle? > > Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly, that's considered good. It shouldn't be uneven but some resistance helps. Cheap autofocus zooms are too loose and jumpy. > I dont't understand. How does uneven zoom action(more force is needed to > turn the zoom ring past around 70mm) help with manual-focusing? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly, that's considered good. > It shouldn't be uneven but some resistance helps. Cheap autofocus zooms > are too loose and jumpy. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> > >>Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly, that's considered good. The zoom action has nothing to do with focus. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>>>Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly > > The zoom action has nothing to do with focus. Doh! oops Although if the front extends that might prevent it slipping out when hanging down. > Some resistance helps you manually focus smoothly, that's considered good. 1) The OP is talking about zoom, not focus. 2) Resistance should be even and consistent (whether zoom or focus) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Mine does that. It's good feedback. Marketing 101: turn a defect into a "benefit". Lenses with zoom ratios higher than 3:1 just can't be taken seriously. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Mine does that. It's good feedback. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Golly, is there nothing you don't have an opinion about? > Golly, is there nothing you don't have an opinion about? That's what newsgroups are about, honey. You getting that anger out of your system? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom >action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. >Is this normal for this particular model? Has anyone noticed this >resistance in zoom action? They all do, and some are smoother than others. I have tried the 4 or 5 that have passed through the store and, yes it seems normal for that lens. Thanks. I guess I am not used to long zooms. Do other zooms have similar stiffness somewhere in their range? >>I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom >>action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They all do, and some are smoother than others. I have tried the 4 or 5 > that have passed through the store and, yes it seems normal for that lens. > Thanks. I guess I am not used to long zooms. Do other zooms have similar > stiffness somewhere in their range? No, but then, this lens offers a 10x magnification range, and that's more than any other lens offered by Nikon. I hope the fact that it binds in one area isn't indicative of low quality build. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com It is actually 11X zoom. Build quality is quite good except for the mentioned stiffness. First few shots look decent considering its long range. I bought the lens mainly for convenience. Jake >> Thanks. I guess I am not used to long zooms. Do other zooms have similar >> stiffness somewhere in their range? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hope the fact that it binds in one area isn't indicative of low quality > build. > It is actually 11X zoom. Build quality is quite good except for the > mentioned stiffness. First few shots look decent considering its long range. > I bought the lens mainly for convenience. Convenience is a factor and the VR contributes more in that respect than the zoom ratio. Once you try blowing up some images to 15x10" or so, you might consider that an investement in fixed-focal-lenght ("primes") or pro quality zooms which are faster as well as lower zoom ratio, will give you much better results. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>Thanks. I guess I am not used to long zooms. Do other zooms have similar >>stiffness somewhere in their range? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hope the fact that it binds in one area isn't indicative of low quality > build. Since optical performance is not likely the touting point of this lens, its mechanical build is not all that important either. As I and others have said very often, being a high quality supplier like Nikon does not negate their ability to put shoddy, cheap lenses onto the market. It could be argued that as it's a "DX" (eg: "cropped") lens, that it can get away with a larger zoom ratio than would be acceptable with film but even then, > 11:1 is pushing it. Contrast this piece of trash with the new 105 micro and you have two very different levels of quality from Nikon. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Contrast this piece of trash -----Snipped for brevity------ > Cheers, > Alan. Please post your specific research reference to "this piece of trash" so we all might review it. TIA Bob > > Contrast this piece of trash > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > TIA > Bob Bob, it looks like you're quoting me as having said the lens in question is a piece of trash. I didn't. I suspect it will be optically mediocre, as the general rule is that compromises must be made in creating zoom lenses, and those with the greatest zoom range will have made the greatest compromises. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> > Contrast this piece of trash >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Matt Clara > www.mattclara.com Matt: Now that you call it to my attention, it does look like that doesn't it (those attributes never seem to come out correctly when I try to snip for brevity)? Obviously, that was not my intent as you didn't say that. Those were Alan's words and since I didn't get his research reference on this specific lens and since he admitted in a later post his comments were based on generalities and not his personal use, I will remain uninformed and allot to that opinion the attention it is due. Mediocre -- probably (and purchase would depend upon whether or not mediocrity would satisfy the potential owner). Piece of trash -- who knows -- certainly not one who hasn't used the lens nor done the research!! Regards, Bob >>> > Contrast this piece of trash >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Regards, > Bob I realize you didn't intend to attribute the comment to me, I just wanted to "clarify". We're agreed on all the rest you say here. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>>Contrast this piece of trash >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > made in creating zoom lenses, and those with the greatest zoom range > will have made the greatest compromises. Yes, I was the one who called it trash! Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>They all do, and some are smoother than others. I have tried the 4 or 5 >>that have passed through the store and, yes it seems normal for that lens. While I have not tried the 18-200 Nikon, I can hardly believe it would be as bad in this respect as the Sigma 50-500. Zoom ratio lenses above 3:1 are for the most part, toys. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. [] > Zoom ratio lenses above 3:1 are for the most part, toys. > > Cheers, > Alan. You can buy good zoom lenses with greater than a 3:1 range, but they may be quite expensive. They are certainly available for the film and television industries. David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be quite expensive. They are certainly available for the film and > television industries. Be that as it may, in SLR photography (the topical reference) the "holy trinity" of zoom lenses are the 17-35 (f/2.8 or f/3.5), 28-70|80 f/2.8 and 70|80-200 f/2.8, all constant aperture lenses. There are a few 4:1 lenses (like 100-400's) that are very, very good, but it's a relatively easy range to be good in. Whether Minolta, Canon or Nikon (not sure about Pentax and Oly or others), these lenses all have superb end-to-end performance in sharpness/contrast, color and vigenetting. I'm sure much higher zoom ratio lenses could be made with outstanding optical characteristics but the price would be so high that the volume would be so low that the price would be really high so the volume would be really low resulting in higher prices and lower volume, thence much higher prices and dwindling volume so the price ... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >Be that as it may, in SLR photography (the topical reference) the "holy >trinity" of zoom lenses are the 17-35 (f/2.8 or f/3.5), 28-70|80 f/2.8 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >others), these lenses all have superb end-to-end performance in >sharpness/contrast, color and vigenetting. The Pentax pair for the 28-200 range are every bit as good as the contemporary lenses from Nikon & Canon - in fact many think the 80-200 was the best lens of it's day. But the lenses are 10-year-old designs; I'm awaiting with interest the 16-50/f2.8 and 50-135/f2.8 they've just announced for availabilty at the end of 2006 (these are DA lenses, made for the APS-C crop factor, so they pretty much correspond to a 25-75 and 75-200 for 35mm as far as angle of view is concerned). >I'm sure much higher zoom ratio lenses could be made with outstanding >optical characteristics but the price would be so high that the volume >would be so low that the price would be really high so the volume would >be really low resulting in higher prices and lower volume, thence much >higher prices and dwindling volume so the price ... The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the magnificent Canon 35-350. >>Be that as it may, in SLR photography (the topical reference) the "holy >>trinity" of zoom lenses are the 17-35 (f/2.8 or f/3.5), 28-70|80 f/2.8 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Pentax pair for the 28-200 range are every bit as good as the > contemporary lenses from Nikon & Canon - I have no doubt you're right, I just don't know about them. And surprise, surprise, the Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 G outdoes both of the equivalents from Nikon and Canon in sharpness... in fact many think the 80-200 > was the best lens of it's day. But the lenses are 10-year-old designs; > I'm awaiting with interest the 16-50/f2.8 and 50-135/f2.8 they've just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the magnificent > Canon 35-350. Why is it successful? Sales don't count, McDonalds has sold billions... Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the magnificent >> Canon 35-350. > >Why is it successful? Sales don't count, McDonalds has sold billions... Not to people who can afford to eat wherever they like. The 35-350 sells well to people with a bagfull of high-priced glass (300/2.8s, 400/2.8s, 600/4s, etc.) As far as I can tell it does the job pretty darn well. >>>The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the magnificent >>>Canon 35-350. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (300/2.8s, 400/2.8s, 600/4s, etc.) As far as I can tell it does > the job pretty darn well. Source? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>> The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the >>>> magnificent Canon 35-350. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Source? May I add my observations? In response to the "magnificent" quoted above, I Googled around and found numerous accolades from posters whose comments were of the nature, "It's a little not-perfect at the short end, but when I can't or don't want to carry my (name one or several long, expensive single focal-length Canon lenses), it is really, really good..." If it cost half as much, I'd be tempted to shop. Same goes for its descendant/replacement, the Canon 28-300. For my purposes and (20D) skill level, the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200 (with the 70-300 DO kicker) 1.4x'd just about cover it. SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward >>>>> The one successful high-zoom-ratio lens I know of is the >>>>> magnificent Canon 35-350. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > For my purposes and (20D) skill level, the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200 > (with the 70-300 DO kicker) 1.4x'd just about cover it. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I'm sure much higher zoom ratio lenses could be made with outstanding > optical characteristics but the price would be so high that the volume > would be so low that the price would be really high so the volume would > be really low resulting in higher prices and lower volume, thence much > higher prices and dwindling volume so the price ... I think that paragraph was tripple redundant, don't you? :-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 -- Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, c. 1895 > Zoom ratio lenses above 3:1 are for the most part, toys. For 35mm cameras, perhaps, for now. However, you may want to refine your ROT for APS-C designed lenses like the 18-200mm DX lens. I am not saying that the range is alright, just that your ROT is just that, and it was developed for 35mm film. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 -- Please don't recommend me to your friends-- it's difficult enough to cope with you alone. > I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom > action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. > Is this normal for this particular model? Has anyone noticed this resistance > in zoom action? Mine does that, too. It bothered me at first, but after considerable use it has become less noticeable. I find that I do 90% of my shooting at either 18mm or 200mm; very little in between. >>I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom >>action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I find that I do 90% of my shooting at either 18mm or 200mm; very > little in between. Move around more and you'll use more of that interim zoom range and increase the persepctive variety. Better yet, get a wide angle and a telephoto prime lens. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I just bought the new Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX and noticed that the zoom > action is not very smooth. It has a very noticeable resistance around 70mm. > Is this normal for this particular model? Has anyone noticed this resistance > in zoom action? Toy lenses often have cranky zooms. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. I have taken nearly 1000 images and the lens works wonderfully. It is a great mate for my Nikon d200. It is neither a toy nor trash, and takes extremely high quality images. See www.kenrockwell.com for some in depth reviews. >I have taken nearly 1000 images and the lens works wonderfully. It is a >great mate for my Nikon d200. It is neither a toy nor trash, and takes >extremely high quality images. See www.kenrockwell.com for some in depth >reviews. Ken Rockwell? In depth reviews? I suppose you're right. No-one could possibly sink any lower. ;-) > >I have taken nearly 1000 images and the lens works wonderfully. It is a > >great mate for my Nikon d200. It is neither a toy nor trash, and takes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ;-) I know some of the people here have a lot of fun criticizing Ken Rockwell. It is a lot easier to tear down others rather than build something positive. I find Rockwell's opinions honest and I appreciate his enthusiasm. He is a good promoter of amateur photography. The world could use a few more people like him. I do not always agree with Ken Rockwell. He is definitely a Nikon enthusiast. Is that so bad, though? I have never seen him claim to have used a lens that he has not. He is usually enthusiastic about new lens announcements. So what? I get pretty enthusiastic about them, too. I can hardly wait to get my hands on the new 105mm Micro Nikkor. Rockwell gets most of his criticism from people who are interested in the technical merits of individual pieces of equipment than they are in photography as an art. Rockwell's point that microscopic differences in test patterns count for little in the real world of photography apparently rankles some. Nevertheless it is true. >I know some of the people here have a lot of fun criticizing Ken >Rockwell. It is a lot easier to tear down others rather than build >something positive. > >I find Rockwell's opinions honest . . . Then you've obviously never read his "reviews" (sic) of equipment he hasn't even seen, let alone used. > >I know some of the people here have a lot of fun criticizing Ken > >Rockwell. It is a lot easier to tear down others rather than build [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then you've obviously never read his "reviews" (sic) > of equipment he hasn't even seen, let alone used. Have you? Or are you 'reviewing' reviews that you have not seen, let alone read? >>>I know some of the people here have a lot of fun criticizing Ken >>>Rockwell. It is a lot easier to tear down others rather than build [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Have you? Or are you 'reviewing' reviews that you have not seen, let > alone read? I've seen a couple where he says he never tried the lens but he still summarizes the specs nicely & links it into his format which is very useful. >>>>I know some of the people here have a lot of fun criticizing Ken >>>>Rockwell. It is a lot easier to tear down others rather than build [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > summarizes the specs nicely & links it into his format which is very > useful. And he always says that he hasn't used the lens, or whatever--it's not like it's covert, or something. He's to be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps two grains, but then, who isn't? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I have taken nearly 1000 images and the lens works wonderfully. It is a > great mate for my Nikon d200. It is neither a toy nor trash, and takes > extremely high quality images. See www.kenrockwell.com for some in depth > reviews. I apologize for calling it a "toy" as my experience with such high ratio zooms is limited to my girlfriend's 28-200 and another friends 20D mounted 50-500, both from Sigma. I haven't seen the Nikon 18-200, so while I'll happily retract the "toy" statement, I will not retract my opinion (not unique to me by any stretch) that high ratio zooms are compromized optically. Moreso that they aren't (and can't practically be) fast and constant aperture. A more worthy mate for your D200 would be Nikon's excellent 80-200 f/2.8 D or, if you like to handhold your shots, the 70-200 f/2.8 G EDIF VR at only twice the price and very slightly less optical performance. Then a 28-70 /2.8 IF ED, and finally an 18 f/2.8 D. All the above are in 77mm filter size. In short, the lens is the most critical part of your system and the 18-200mm is not up to the MTF of the sensor on your camera. Further, it is somewhat slow at the long end meaning it will be sharpest at about f/11 - f/16 at 200mm. You might find changing lenses more restrictive than a goal of achieving high quality images, so that's your privilege, of course. Depending on what _you_ do, it may be adequate. As to Ken Rockwell, he rarely has anything negative to say about Nikon lenses whether good or trash. Even when he's actually used one! I am biased towards high speed lenses and narrow zoom ratios as I'm a very film oriented shooter. Digital gives so much in terms of a cleaner, low noise ("grain") image and perfectly flat sensor that a tradeoff to lower lens performance on a digital sensor may be a wash in many cases. But 11:1 ? No. And there's no substitute for fast, constant aperture glass. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > A more worthy mate for your D200 would be Nikon's excellent 80-200 > f/2.8 D or, if you like to handhold your shots, the 70-200 f/2.8 G > EDIF VR at only twice the price and very slightly less optical > performance. I agree that the 70-200mm is definitely a great choice. I think the jury is still out on whether or not the 80-200mm is optically superior to the 70-200mm. Either lens will give him maximum joy. > Then a 28-70 /2.8 IF ED, and finally an 18 f/2.8 D. You don't like the 17-35mm? I have both the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm and find them to be an excellent choice. > All the above are in 77mm filter size. Yes, I love that. > But 11:1 ? No. And there's no substitute for fast, constant aperture > glass. I agree with you, but if you remember it wasn't that many years back that *ANY* zoom lens was considered inferior garbage. If the 18-200 isn't a winner now I'll bet later generations of it will amaze all of us. Technology keeps improving. Rita >> A more worthy mate for your D200 would be Nikon's excellent 80-200 >> f/2.8 D or, if you like to handhold your shots, the 70-200 f/2.8 G [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > still out on whether or not the 80-200mm is optically superior to the > 70-200mm. Either lens will give him maximum joy. That's twice we've agreed on something. Dangerous. >> Then a 28-70 /2.8 IF ED, and finally an 18 f/2.8 D. > > You don't like the 17-35mm? I have both the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm and > find them to be an excellent choice. I don't doubt it at all. But I love my (Minolta) 20mm f/2.8 lens, so I'm biased to the prime and so far reluctant to plonk out the cash for the Minolta 17-35 f/3.5 G (Very expensive). >> All the above are in 77mm filter size. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > isn't a winner now I'll bet later generations of it will amaze all of > us. Technology keeps improving. See my other comments regarding constant, fast aperture over a wide zoom ratio. I doubt it's at all possible (except for much smaller sensors or for optics that haven't yet been invented.) One example of technology shift here would be Canon's DO lenses, all both of them, which have their own, albeit minor, drawbacks, and are quite pricey. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I don't doubt it at all. But I love my (Minolta) 20mm f/2.8 lens, so > I'm biased to the prime and so far reluctant to plonk out the cash for > the Minolta 17-35 f/3.5 G (Very expensive). I was referring to the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8. I'm not familiar with the Minolta lens. The Nikon 17-35mm is definitely a great lens, but I'm not sure if it would be any better or worse than the primes Nikon has in that range since I never owned any of their primes to compare it against. >> I agree with you, but if you remember it wasn't that many years back >> that *ANY* zoom lens was considered inferior garbage. If the 18-200 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > zoom ratio. I doubt it's at all possible (except for much smaller > sensors or for optics that haven't yet been invented.) I don't doubt it is possible, but I do question its practicality and cost vs. value. The issue is going to be much more size and weight to achieve this. I'm sure with advanced computer modeling and advancements in lens coatings they might be able to pull it off. For a faster and sharper 18-200mm lens I would expect it to be comparable in size to the 80-200, but I could be wrong since this is old thinking. The new 105mm Micro Nikkor is even larger than the old and has totally redesigned optics. Lens manufacturers are definitely getting better at what they do. Rita >> I don't doubt it at all. But I love my (Minolta) 20mm f/2.8 lens, so >> I'm biased to the prime and so far reluctant to plonk out the cash for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure if it would be any better or worse than the primes Nikon has in that > range since I never owned any of their primes to compare it against. I realize that, I was just explaining my 20mm bias. Has nothing to do with brand, >>> I agree with you, but if you remember it wasn't that many years back >>> that *ANY* zoom lens was considered inferior garbage. If the 18-200 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 18-200mm lens I would expect it to be comparable in size to the 80-200, > but I could be wrong since this is old thinking. Computer modeling can optimize a design or allow finer tradespace, but can't change physics. > The new 105mm Micro Nikkor is even larger than the old and has totally > redesigned optics. Lens manufacturers are definitely getting better at > what > they do. I don't think its optical configuration has changed so significantly that applying that to getting an 11:1 ratio zoom with fast constant aperture is possible (without it being both a monster and expensive). The larger size of the 105 micro is also due in part to the VR as you have to add a lens element for the VR, which, come to think of it, would subtract from the optical qualities had they not doen it VR. Trade off to the benefit of handhel macro shooters vs. the plodders who will not want the additional optics in the lens that VR requires. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I was referring to the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8. I'm not familiar with the >Minolta lens. The Nikon 17-35mm is definitely a great lens, but I'm not >sure if it would be any better or worse than the primes Nikon has in that >range since I never owned any of their primes to compare it against. <http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm> I bought a (2nd hand) 17-35/2.8 because my 20/2.8 has a very low contrast. I like it a lot, but I didn't compare it directly to my 24/2, 28/2, and 35/2. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > > I have taken nearly 1000 images and the lens works wonderfully. It is a > > great mate for my Nikon d200. It is neither a toy nor trash, and takes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > compromized optically. Moreso that they aren't (and can't practically > be) fast and constant aperture. Having used the 18-200 considerably, despite the fact that I also own the 70-200 VR, I can't call the 18-200 a toy -- 'casual' would be more descriptive. I will grant that a $700 lens is not likely to be the equal of a $1300 lens either optically or in build quality. The thing is, the 18-200 does surprisingly well, far better than I expected for such a wide zoom ratio. It is an excellent lens for travel photography. It holds up to considerable punishment (except for the really crummy lens hood). Optically it is the equal of the 18-70mm, the so-called "kit" lens which is actually one of the better lenses that Nikon makes. Sure, you could buy three lenses of very high quality: the 12-24, the 17-55, and the 70-200, but you would spend about $4000 for the lot. I own all three lenses myself. But the lens I use most of the time is the 18-200. Convenience counts for a lot, even though the other lenses are technically better. The thing is, to get a better picture with the 17-55 than I get with the 18-200 I have to use a tripod, which is not always practical and which has its own costs in weight. With all that, I think I am willing to put up with a little stickiness in the zoom. If that had appeared in some $1000+ lens I would probably be outraged. I have a couple sets of 77mm filters and a set for the 18-200, but the truth is I am using filters less now, preferring to make most adjustments in editing. I still think the circular polarizer is essential for many shots. It is an excellent lens for travel photography. > It holds up to considerable punishment (except for the really crummy > lens hood). --- Balance snipped for brevity ---- As you mention how it handles punishment, how would you compare the build quality of the 18-200 with the following Nikkors: 17-35 f2.8AF-S 28-70 f2.8AF-S 80-200 f2.8AF-S 24-120 f3.5-5.6G VR AF-S if you are familiar with these. TIA Bob > It is an excellent lens for travel photography. > > It holds up to considerable punishment (except for the really crummy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 24-120 f3.5-5.6G VR AF-S > if you are familiar with these. <heavy sigh> Unfortunately, I do not have any of those. :-( I would appreciate any loaners... I think the one thing that puts me off on the build quality of the 18-200 is simply that long plastic tube that runs in and out as it zooms and the sticky zoom action. I guess that is two things. The hood makes it three. I think if the 18-200 was dropped with the lens fully extended that there is a good chance of breaking that tube. OTOH, usually the first thing that gets damaged in a dropped lens is the autofocus, although I suppose the VR could be knocked out of alignment, too. As for water or salt or sand, the 18-200 does not seem as well sealed as the more expensive lenses I have. OTOH it is also possibly a little more expendable. I don't baby it. I have already taken it out in the rain and have knocked it (and the D70) off a table onto a concrete floor. So far the only damage it has sustained is to the lens hood. Come to think of it, for a camera that is not supposed to be as tough as a professional camera, the D70 has put up with a substantial amount of abuse. So far I have dropped it onto the pavement from chest height, had it fall over on a tripod onto a rock (which smashed the filters on the 18-70mm "kit" lens, broke the lens hood, and knocked the autofocus out of commission), and knocked it off the table. I have taken pictures with it in a raging typhoon, getting some very dramatic shots, but soaking both camera and lens in the process. It rides around on the floor of the car, has been in dust storms, subjected to sandstorms and salt spray, and it lives continually in high tropical heat and humidity. The only damage I can see is a small scratch on the back. It just keeps on ticking. Any other camera I have owned would have given up the ghost long ago. Granted, given its history, I suppose no one will want to buy it used... The other lens that I have grossly mistreated is the 80-400 AF-S VR, which I had fall out of a backpack, hit the concrete, bounce over a curb, and then roll and bounce down the side of a rock jetty. Fortunately, all but the lens cap stopped short of the water. The lens hood was broken, but it remains usable. Other than that, I cannot find so much as a scratch. Lens caps float, by the way. Although the lens is okay, I am that much closer to needing permanent medication for heart problems... >> It is an excellent lens for travel photography. >> > It holds up to considerable punishment (except for the really crummy [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > okay, I am that much closer to needing permanent medication for heart > problems... Amazingly detailed account of durability!! I tend to go in the opposite direction perhaps erring on the side of over-protectiveness. In fact sometimes I think I should be a little rougher on my equipment (just to show it who's boss ;-)) The reason I asked is the dealers around here seem to stock only what they can sell in the next five minutes, so I haven't been able to get my hands on one to examine it carefully. I use the 24-120 AF-S VR as my "go no-go gauge" and if that is representative of the current and future Nikkor build quality, I will ensure I examine carefully before any purchase. It's too bad because my other lenses (the above plus the AF 200 f4 Micro and the AF-S 300 f4 are of outstanding build quality. The 24-120's optics give reasonable results (for a walk-around lens) but when things get serious, out comes the tripod and the 24-120 gets put away. It's nice to hear of your experience with the 80-400 VR (I think it is an AF-D, not AF-S, no??) as it has been on my "want" list for awhile. Regards Bob > It's nice to hear of your experience with the 80-400 VR (I think it is an > AF-D, not AF-S, no??) as it has been on my "want" list for awhile. It is the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor, to be exact. :-) It is not a terrible lens, but Nikon really should have made it AF-S and whoever came up with the tripod mount should come to work and find his desk in flames in front of the office building. This is the kind of lens that VR was made for. It is possible to actually shoot handheld at 400mm and get a reasonably sharp picture. Of course, it has to be a pretty bright day, but it can be done. That extra four stops of shutter speed lets you snap away at 400mm as low as 1/60 second. Brace it a little, and you can get to 1/8 second without a tripod. To be honest, I think most people would be happier with the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor and a teleconverter, but that is, of course, the more expensive option. I have managed to take sharp handheld pictures at 200mm with this lens with exposures as long as 1/4 of a second. Admittedly, I can't do it every time, but I can do it often enough that if I take six or seven shots I am likely to get something usable. I took this picture with the 18-200mm lens at 1/8 second handheld: http://tinyurl.com/pg45e It is not perfectly sharp, but I thought pretty good for handheld. > Toy lenses often have cranky zooms. So, have you used the lens? So, why are you so quick to label it. You appear to assume much ... and you know what that means. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 -- Go to a movie tonight. Darkness becomes you. >> Toy lenses often have cranky zooms. > > So, have you used the lens? So, why are you so quick to label it. You > appear to assume much ... and you know what that means. Mr. Browne acts as if he knows everything. It's a device he uses to hide his insecurities. Michelle Twain |
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
|
©2008 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.