[Butler]

The Nikkor 18-200 VRII is a god send to me. I may some day sell other lenses, but this one will always be with me. I do event photography with a D7000 and it's such a wonderful all-round lens. It's a great way to ensure that you wont miss a shot because something is too close or far. It's not the fastest, but the iso to noise rate is considerably lower than nikon's lower end DSLRs, so even 800 is crystal clear. 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

I have wanted a Nikon FM2 for a very long time. 
 
I found an FM on craigslist at a price that I could not say no to so I got an FM instead. Ooh, it came with the lens which is good because my current 50F1.4 is kind of beat.
 
Anyways, here's a picture of my camera that I took with my camera. I have always wanted to write that.
 

 

 
Now I get to take REALLLLLLY wide pix with my 14mm lens

Very Vintage!  14mm on full frame will be crazy.  What would that translate into, 160º field of view?  Wow.
 
Out of curiosity, what have you decided upon for developing the film?  Do you have a local camera shop that does it, the local pharmacy / club store, or will you have your own setup?
 

 

[Redcarmoose]

@ nikongod
 
What a score! Looks in great shape. I purchased an FM in 2009. The great part is you can use a light meter if the batteries start to get hard to find.
 
You will have to post your ultrawide shots. My 18mm ais prime takes 72mm filters as does my 300mm ais prime. I need to get a polarizer. The cool part is 1 72mm filter will work with both lens.
 
 
@Towert7
 
That is quiet the collection of fast glass! If I ever do get a zoom I will blame you for those great examples. The zoom lens has really improved from the time it was introduced. So all your prime lens are auto-focus? It is cool when someone posts all their equipment because you can see the thought put into the selection. 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

@Towert7  
That is quiet the collection of fast glass! If I ever do get a zoom I will blame you for those great examples. The zoom lens has really improved from the time it was introduced. So all your prime lens are auto-focus? It is cool when someone posts all their equipment because you can see the thought put into the selection. 

 
Yes, all of my lenses can be used with auto focus, with the exception of the 80-200mm F4.5n.  That is a true AI lens.
 
 

 

[nikongod]

 
Quote:

Very Vintage!  14mm on full frame will be crazy.  What would that translate into, 160º field of view?  Wow.
 
Out of curiosity, what have you decided upon for developing the film?  Do you have a local camera shop that does it, the local pharmacy / club store, or will you have your own setup?
 

Its about 116* on full-frame, and 94* on DX.  
 
I shot this on DX from the sidewalk in front of the building:
 

 
I really like how easily this lens gives VERY weird perspectives, but without going circular fisheye on the world.
It has somewhat complex distortion, but I have gotten a few Full-Frame pix I downloaded off of flickr to very acceptable levels with the lens distortion tools in GIMP. (I tweaked that picture just a little bit to reduce barrel distortion) 
 
I plan to take color film to Costco, and DIY B&W.

 

[anoobis]

I may be in the market for a new zoom telephoto lens and would welcome any advice from the experienced here. If this has already been covered, please point me to the posts (I did search first!).

My Sigma 70-300mm slide zoom is sticking. I'm looking into having to repaired but am searching for alternatives in case it's not worth it.

I've come up with a Nikon shortlist (it's for a D50) based on budget but would consider third party:

> 70 - 300mm G f/4-5.6 (used, $110)
> 55 - 200mm VR DX f/4 - 5.6 (new, $430)
> 55 - 300mm VR DX f/4.5 - 5.6 (new, $430)

Prices are approximate conversions from GBP.

According to http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm, the first one is a great lens. I'm assuming that the reason it's no longer recommended is because it lacks VR.

Bottom line is, which of these would you go for and why?

Questions I'm trying to answer:
> is VR all that (i.e. do I just get the cheapest option, almost a direct replacement)?
> are the VR lenses optically equally?  Should the f/4 vs. f/4.5 be of concern?
> given the similar prices, is there any (other) reason to choose the 200mm VR over the 300mm? I can think of reasons to do with user ability/usability but surely better to learn than not have the option, all other things being equal.

Many thanks.
 
Forgot to ask, is there much to be gained using the '35mm' lenses on the DX sensors in respect of edge effects?

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

I may be in the market for a new zoom telephoto lens and would welcome any advice from the experienced here. If this has already been covered, please point me to the posts (I did search first!).

My Sigma 70-300mm slide zoom is sticking. I'm looking into having to repaired but am searching for alternatives in case it's not worth it.

I've come up with a Nikon shortlist (it's for a D50) based on budget but would consider third party:

> 70 - 300mm G f/4-5.6 (used, $110)
> 55 - 200mm VR DX f/4 - 5.6 (new, $430)
> 55 - 300mm VR DX f/4.5 - 5.6 (new, $430)

Prices are approximate conversions from GBP.

According to http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm, the first one is a great lens. I'm assuming that the reason it's no longer recommended is because it lacks VR.

Bottom line is, which of these would you go for and why?

Questions I'm trying to answer:
> is VR all that (i.e. do I just get the cheapest option, almost a direct replacement)?
> are the VR lenses optically equally?  Should the f/4 vs. f/4.5 be of concern?
> given the similar prices, is there any (other) reason to choose the 200mm VR over the 300mm? I can think of reasons to do with user ability/usability but surely better to learn than not have the option, all other things being equal.

Many thanks.
 
Forgot to ask, is there much to be gained using the '35mm' lenses on the DX sensors in respect of edge effects?

1.  The non-VR, non-AF-S 70-300mm is okay, but pales in comparison to all the newer consumer zooms.  I wouldn't bother at all, with the 55-200 not unlikely to give better results by cropping from 200 than this lens at 300.  Used it may be a decent bargain because it has been in production for a very long time.
 
2.  Both the 55-200mm VR and the 55-300mm VR are very good.  The 55-200 only weighs 3/5 of what the 55-300 does; it's much smaller.  Basically, choose between the two in terms of price/size/focal length.
 
3.  The price you quote for the 55-200 (and to a lesser extent the 55-300) is absurd, even in the UK.  You can get the 55-200 from Amazon.co.uk for 210 GBP, and if you buy from their preferred merchant (shipped by Amazon itself), it's down to 160 GBP.  The 55-300 is more expensive, closer to the prices you give.  Since there's no additional Nikon UK lens warranty like there is in the US, there's no reason not to go for the lower price.  Don't tell me you're buying from Grays of Westminister...
 
4.  The 70-300mm VR is a significant upgrade in performance, with far faster autofocus and instant manual override (with actual useful manual focusing).  It is of course significantly more expensive, and much larger.
 
5. VR can be useful but it depends what you are doing.  For me - shooting indoor sports - it is useless.  I need fast shutter speeds anyway, and only a fast lens will do.  For someone taking landscape photos without a tripod, it could be very useful.
 

 

[Towert7]

 
Quote:

1.  The 70-300mm is okay, but pales in comparison to all the newer consumer zooms. 
I wouldn't bother at all
 

 
Can you be more specific?
In some ways the 70-300G is better than newer consumer zooms.  It has a smoother bokeh, is VERY light, has a very nice hood that goes with it.
 
@anoobis:
I have the Nikon 70-300 G, and even for its new price it's well worth it (150$US).
For 150$, you do not get a wide aperture, and no optical image stabilization.  The front element also rotates for different focus points, which can be tough if you use a polarizer.  For 150$, you can not expect these features.
If you accept this, and will be using it in medium to bright light, it is a great lens for the price.  I love the photos that come from it.
It's bokeh is smooth as butter.  It truly has one of the best bokehs I have seen from a lens when used accordingly.
 
Here are some photos from my 70-300G:





















 
 
If you can't take nice pictures with the 70-300G in well lit areas you're doing something very wrong.
For 150$ I think it's a great lens for the price!  I highly recommend it.
 
Once again, it should be noted that the 70-300G has a smoother bokeh than the new 70-300VR.
 
Maybe BlackbeardBen wouldn't bother, but I love my little 70-300G!
Hope this helps.
 
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
 
Can you be more specific?
In some ways the 70-300G is better than newer consumer zooms.  It has a smoother bokeh, is VERY light, has a very nice hood that goes with it.
 
@anoobis:
I have the Nikon 70-300 G, and even for its new price it's well worth it (150$US).
For 150$, you do not get a wide aperture, and no optical image stabilization.  The front element also rotates for different focus points, which can be tough if you use a polarizer.  For 150$, you can not expect these features.
If you accept this, and will be using it in medium to bright light, it is a great lens for the price.  I love the photos that come from it.
It's bokeh is smooth as butter.  It truly has one of the best bokehs I have seen from a lens when used accordingly.
 
Here are some photos from my 70-300G:
 
[Snip far too many photos]
 
If you can't take nice pictures with the 70-300G in well lit areas you're doing something very wrong.
For 150$ I think it's a great lens for the price!  I highly recommend it.
 
Once again, it should be noted that the 70-300G has a smoother bokeh than the new 70-300VR.
 
Maybe BlackbeardBen wouldn't bother, but I love my little 70-300G!
Hope this helps.
 
 

Almost any lens can take decent photos at 640 pixels wide, especially in bright light...
 
I'm just saying that it isn't spectacular.  There's nothing special about it except the price, which the 55-200mm VR is rather close to.  The bokeh doesn't look that great either - just really blurred as you'd expect from a long lens shooting things close up.  Look at the commencement photo with the crowd in the background - horrible bokeh.  The others are fine but nothing special.

If it were a really good performer all the way to 300mm I'd say it's definitely the bargain of the bunch, but when you factor in its very poor performance above 200mm plus lack of VR compared to the slightly more expensive, much smaller, and sharper 55-200mm VR, I'd say it's not worth buying.  I'm not the only one either:
 
http://photocamel.com/forum/nikon-forum/128509-300mm-d3100.html
 
And there's others...
 
Or Photozone.de's review of each:
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/249-nikkor-af-70-300mm-f4-56-d-ed-review--test-report
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report
 
The 55-200 VR is better at 200mm wide open at f/5.6 than the 70-300G is at f/8 - in fact, the 70-300G never gets as good as the 55-200 VR at 200mm.  Or at 70mm, either.  Really, the 55-200 VR is a significantly better performing lens in every respect except the maximum focal length - compare the full-size examples they have there as well as the MTF measurements.  On top of the just plain better performance of the 55-200 VR, it weighs half a pound less, doesn't have a rotating filter ring, does have a 52mm filter ring, and it has VR...  So it'll have an even bigger advantage when it gets darker.
 
Honestly, I still don't see any reason to get the 70-300G.  Is it useable?  Sure.  Would I want to? Not at all with a lens as good as the 55-200 VR to compare to.  Then again, I'm anal-retentive about this sort of thing.  The only telephoto zooms I've been satisfied with so far are the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S...  More or less perfect performance from both of them from one end of the range to the other, and wide open until stopped all the way down.  I'm not sure I can accept anything less any more.  I'd get the 55-200 VR myself as a travel lens if I had the money and I didn't like the 75-150 so much.
 
 

 

[bigshot]

I wouldn't get a lens this long without VR. I couldn't ever afford a fast tele zoom, so VR is the next best.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Look at the commencement photo with the crowd in the background - horrible bokeh. 
 

 
That's funny.  You consider it horrible bokeh, and I think it's a fantastic image.
 
In the interest of full disclosure, did you ever own the 70-300G, or are you just going off of what other people say and photos you've seen?  Be honest.  ^_^
 
 
 
Quote:

Almost any lens can take decent photos at 640 pixels wide
 

 
I must state that my reason for posting 640px pictures is out of respect for those with small monitors / slow internet.  It is also easier to see the whole photo when in a preview size.  It is not to hide detail.  Every photo you see is sharp as a tack at full resolution (with the exception of the cat photo).  If you wanted to see any at full size, ask.
 
 
Oh well, we seem to agree to disagree.
I stand by my recommendation for the 70-300G lens.  For those of us on a budget, it's a fantastic 70-300mm lens.  I am very thankful Nikon continues to make it.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

I wouldn't get a lens this long without VR. I couldn't ever afford a fast tele zoom, so VR is the next best.

On sunny days I'm usually at 1/2000 sec to 1/5000 sec at ISO200.
On overcast days I'm usually at 1/500sec at ISO 800.
 
If it's dark out, the lens would certainly need a tripod.
 
Sometimes if I don't mind the bother, I'll use a monopod.  Works great.

 

[bigshot]

I don't always shoot on sunny days. In fact, I rarely shoot on sunny days.

 

[Towert7]

I felt compelled to add just one more.  I always liked this one.
 

70-300G

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
That's funny.  You consider it horrible bokeh, and I think it's a fantastic image.
 
A decent image, perhaps.  Horrid bokeh though, and that's what you were specifically pointing out as being "good".
 
 
 
In the interest of full disclosure, did you ever own the 70-300G, or are you just going off of what other people say and photos you've seen?  Be honest.  ^_^
 
I never owned it, but shot about 5,000 images with one on a D1 (yes, the original) and was not impressed at all, even with 2.7 megapixels...
 
 
I must state that my reason for posting 640px pictures is out of respect for those with small monitors / slow internet.  It is also easier to see the whole photo when in a preview size.  It is not to hide detail.  Every photo you see is sharp as a tack at full resolution (with the exception of the cat photo).  If you wanted to see any at full size, ask.
 
I understand why you're posting that size.  No, you don't have to send me any full size ones, my own and the photozone.de photos are proof enough.  I don't know what your idea of "tack sharp" is, but you ought to go look at what a good lens can do at 300mm - and while you're at it, some Foveon photos as well.
 
 
Oh well, we seem to agree to disagree.
I stand by my recommendation for the 70-300G lens.  For those of us on a budget, it's a fantastic 70-300mm lens.  I am very thankful Nikon continues to make it.
 
You may like it, I disagree - and I'm far from the only one with this opinion.

 


Quote:

On sunny days I'm usually at 1/2000 sec to 1/5000 sec at ISO200.
On overcast days I'm usually at 1/500sec at ISO 800.
 
If it's dark out, the lens would certainly need a tripod.
 
Sometimes if I don't mind the bother, I'll use a monopod.  Works great.

ISO 800 outside for overcast?

See, that would be entirely unacceptable to me.  400 at most.  Then again, I have a faster lens, and I'm only using a D200.
 
I gave up on regular monopod use when I realized that I could handhold just as good sitting down, and any time there was action I already need to be shooting fast enough anyway.  I still have it but never use it - I'm keeping it in case I buy another 300mm f/2.8.  That's just too heavy to handhold for very long.  I can do it, but not for 10 hours like I can do with the 80-200...