The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[bahamaman]

Towert7 - wow, wonderful pics! Thanks for sharing.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bahamaman

Actually, I am not totally sold on the 18-200 either, but I felt that its versatility and Vibration Reduction might make it a good starting point. I would probably prefer one of the Pro lens, maybe the 17-55 or even the wicked pricey 24 (or is it 28?) - 70.

The 18-200VR is a really nice lens. It's fairly priced at 670$us. The other, more specific, lenses that cost 1600$ and up are when you get serious and need the best performance from the lens. Seriously though, feel the weight of the 18-200VR and the 24-70mm on the camera itself, and you'll see that the 24-70mm is a beast! I have the 10 year old 35-70mm nikkor, and even that is fairly heavy. The 24 (or 28) - 70mm is quite a bit heavier, and certainly much bigger.
Yea, I'd start with the 18-200 and take it from there.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bahamaman

Towert7 - wow, wonderful pics! Thanks for sharing.

Thanks!

[jterp7]

wow Towert..I also have a D50 + 50mm 1.4 and 18-200VR and none of my pics look that good lol...most likely user error though -_-

[Towert7]

Jterp7, thank you for the nice comment!
Give it time, and lots and lots of practice. Then, all that you need to do is photograph what makes you happy, and I simply know that you will take wonderful pictures!

[nineohtoo]

Towert7: The bokeh doesn't look as bad as you make it seem, particularly on the butterfly. Which is a really nice picture BTW.

I think the 18-200 would be a wise decision to start off with. I started with a D40 and 18-135mm just to get a feel for what I was going to shoot. If she find she needs particular lenses for what she needs, you guys can always find someone who likes it, or keep it as a travel lens. But once she finds what she needs, it's gonna be bad...

For me it's worse than head-fi. My current camera gear is worth well more than my car's blue book value, and how much I currently have floating around my room that's in between trades and sales... and to think, I only picked up that D40 during black friday

[Towert7]

Thanks nineohtoo!

Ah, but it's a fun and harmless addiction, albeit expensive.

[Iron_Dreamer]

But you have to look at the cost ceiling. A D3 is $5k, and the most any non-supertele lenses cost is ~$2k. Whereas one can easily shell out $30k+ for a top-end source or set of speakers

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by Towert7

It's not that bad, probably better than you expect. It is bested by nikon's best primes, but not by much.

Just a few examples (sorry 56'ers):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/...1a21d28b_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/4...a4e815d6_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/...3f37dddc_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/...0978a07d_b.jpg

All taken with the 18-200VR and my D50.
Not bad I would say. Again, not quite as crisp as my 50mm fixed..... but very close. They look lovely printed. I've done an 10x15 of the butterfly and really love it! Easily could have gone larger.

Nikon seems to have used a lot of ED glass on it to try and increase sharpness. It worked. A downside though, is it's hard to get good bokeh. I can't really get a tight DOF with it or very soft bokeh.

Dude, whatever, man. Your photos just prove to me again that the Photographer behind the body and lense is most important.

I'll bet that you could shoot better pics with a point and shoot than if I had a D3 and the 28mm f/1.4.

Your photos are simply gorgeous. Oversaturated, but gorgeous.

-Ed

[dj_mocok]

Cat with digital camera. I swear he takes better pictures than my partner!

I should mount similar cam to a grandma and setup grandma-strapped-with-cam project and see how it comes out.