New Nikon D40x and a new lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Mar 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    just bob Guest

    just bob, Mar 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 7, 2007
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Warren Guest

    I would like to see a lighter version.
     
    Mike Warren, Mar 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 7, 2007
    #7
  8. 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.)
    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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Skip Guest

    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.
     
    Skip, Mar 7, 2007
    #9
  10. The market for those two lenses is entirely different.
     
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 7, 2007
    #10
  11. 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.
     
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 7, 2007
    #12
  13. 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.
    There will be more 300s on the used market, don't sweat it. I really like
    my 70-200 indoors.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #13
  14. 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.
    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.
    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
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #14
  15. 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
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Mar 7, 2007
    #16
  17. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 7, 2007
    #17
  18. 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.
    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.
    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.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 7, 2007
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    Can? of course.
    Will? doubtful.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Mar 7, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    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.
    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.
    Assuming it had an off switch (as they all do) how would it be crippled?
    (extra weight maybe?)
    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.
     
    Mr.T, Mar 7, 2007
    #20
    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.