Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by MaryL, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. MaryL

    MaryL Guest

    I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
    will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
    moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is entirely
    out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
    in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
    remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
    have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
    I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
    almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
    to do things manually when conditions call for it.

    Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
    f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
    appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
    look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
    provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
    I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.

    Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
    stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
    factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
    of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
    stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
    and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
    not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)

    MaryL
     
    MaryL, Apr 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    there's quite a difference between a d40x and d300. also keep in mind
    that the d80 is soon to be replaced...
    it's an excellent one-lens solution, but if you split the range into
    multiple lenses, you'll probably get better quality with a little less
    convenience.
    nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
    way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
    lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
     
    Guest, Apr 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    you make it sound like they should change just for the hell of it.
    in-lens stabilization works, and it works well. like everything else,
    it has its advantages and disadvantages.
    all manufacturers want you to buy their expensive lenses, bodies and
    other accessories. nothing new there.

    and stabilized lenses are not necessarily that expensive. for example,
    the nikon 55-200 vr is about $50 more than the non-stabilized version
    ($170 versus $230, usa version, priced today at b&h).
     
    Guest, Apr 27, 2008
    #3
  4. MaryL

    measekite Guest

    Absolutely No.

    While that is the only way to get IS/VR into an existing film camera
    that is not the reason for the way they did it for digital cameras.
    Optical image stabilization / vibration reduction is superior and also
    work when you look through the viewfinder. When built into the camera
    like sony, pentax and others the image will shake in the viewfinder
    since the anti shake has no bearing except on the final image.

    Optical IS/VR is superior while more costly. The lenses are also a bit
    heavier. But Nikon and Canon are at the top of the digital food chain
    for the DSLR 35mm style camera.
     
    measekite, Apr 27, 2008
    #4
  5. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
    noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
    frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
    the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
    the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
    difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.

    olympus 35-100mm f/2, $2199
    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100m
    m_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html>

    canon 70-200mm f/4, $1059
    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002_70_200m
    m_f_4L_IS_USM.html>

    canon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1699
    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200m
    m_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html>

    nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1624
    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_
    2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html>
     
    Guest, Apr 27, 2008
    #5
  6. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    it's only nonsense if the sensor size is the same.

    since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so
    compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final
    image is equivalent.
     
    Guest, Apr 28, 2008
    #6
  7. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with
    some facts.
     
    Guest, Apr 28, 2008
    #7
  8. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    nikon dx is 17% larger in height, but due to the different aspect
    ratios, the width is 31% wider.
     
    Guest, Apr 28, 2008
    #8
  9. MaryL

    Guest Guest

    as i expected. you don't have anything to disprove what i said, just
    insults.
     
    Guest, Apr 28, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.