[skyline889]

What do you guys think of the Nikkor 55-200? I know build quality isn't the greatest but in terms of overall image quality, how well does it perform? I've been trying to get out of photo to free up some funds for a new amp, but the more I read this thread, the more I get drawn back. I'm now reconsidering the 18-200vr and regret selling my D70 for my D50, this really is worse than audio!

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

I don't own the 18-200mm vr just yet. But for now, the 17-80mm is my primary all around lens. I'd dump the 18-70mm once I got the 18-200mm later this year (likely end of the year). I just pulled the trigger on the 17-50mm, and it was a hard one since the SP90 is also another lens in my "must buy" list...and Tamron USA is giving a 90 bucks rebate now for the SP90, knocking the price down to around 359USD shipped. I'll see myself having a collection of: -50mm 1.8 (acquired) -Tamron 90mm SP -Tamron 17-50mm (acquired) -18-200mm VR For year 2007

You can try selling your 18-70mm to nsjong head-fi price (refer to post above

)
Your Tamron 17-50mm, you can sell it to me once you've got your VR.

(don't think you'll sell it anyway, plus I can't buy any lenses anymore at the moment)

I personally dont' need 18-200mm. Never used long zoom, and don't really plan to (pretty ironic coming from someone who used to own Panasonic 12X optical).

The Tamron 90mm, that is one great lens. I used to plan to shoot portrait with it (and macro works of course), but since I got a portrait lens, now I think it won't be used anymore until I got some macro thing to do. I don't know maybe I will if I'm too lazy to do manual stuff. It takes superb portrait too by the way.

Just wondering, any reason why you overlap the focal length? Why not go for 70-200mm if you need the 200 reach? I know deep inside that's what you want. (but gotta reach even deeper into your pocket)

 

[kin0kin]

Long lens with no VR....likely to get stuck at <100mm without a tripod, or missing alot of shots. I'd probably rather get the 18-55mm instead

 

[dj_mocok]

Which long lens you're talking about? If you're talking about 70-200mm, oh yes, it got VR alright. But if I bought that I'd probably need a body VR from wasting that kind of money.

 

[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just wondering, any reason why you overlap the focal length? Why not go for 70-200mm if you need the 200 reach? I know deep inside that's what you want. (but gotta reach even deeper into your pocket)

(they are awesome...buy them all!)
I bought the 17-80mm coz I didn't think I'd be able to afford the 18-200mm vr soon...the 17-80mm is a good alternative for the mean time.

Why not the 70-200mm VR? That's an easy question:
1 X 70-200mm = 2 X 18-200mm = 4-5 X 18-70mm

I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise.

I need the 17-50mm mainly for indoor shots (besides, it's a good lens to keep), I'd have just used the 50mm 1.8 but I wanted a little more flexibilty. The 50mm 1.8 is a no brainer..everybody should get one whether you use it or not

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which long lens you're talking about? If you're talking about 70-200mm, oh yes, it got VR alright. But if I bought that I'd probably need a body VR from wasting that kind of money.

was referring to skyline's 55-200mm non-vr

ps: you're not the only one not using the sp90 much....I've read alot about ppl neglecting the 90mm for various reasons....the 90mm just gets neglected all the time regardless....ought to donate it to people who need it

 

[dj_mocok]

Yeah, with that price you can get a few great lenses, but then it's a very special one. I'm so glad I don't have interest in zoom range, because zoom = $$$.

Hey, after using both Nikon 18-70mm and Tamron 17-50mm, which one do you think is a better performer? Not speed, but sharpness and colour in general? Got some sample pictures?

PS: If you want a cheap long(ish) range with good bokeh, try to get Nikon 105mm 2.5 Ai (or Ai-s).
I really wanna get that one but I know if I get it, that's more of a lens lust than a need for lens.

Edit: The reason why my Tamron is sitting is because I haven't got the time to do my still life macro. A bit lazy at the moment since still life needs a bit of time and preparation. But it will be used, don't worry. It's too good lens to be neglected.

 

[kin0kin]

I havent received the 17-50mm

in fact, I'm placing order tomorrow, but if nsjong take my 18-70mm, I might just jump to 18-200mm VR!

Well it's winter now, nothing much that I could take...but I took 2 quick shots from my window a few days ago with my 18-70mm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason why my Tamron is sitting is because I haven't got the time to do my still life macro. A bit lazy at the moment since still life needs a bit of time and preparation. But it will be used, don't worry. It's too good lens to be neglected.

and of course the 85mm has taken over for portrait. I must say that the 17-80mm actually has very nice and smooth bokeh as well.

 

[dj_mocok]

That's a nice view you got up there. My apartment is on 2nd floor.

(I think one of the biggest advantage of apartment is the view compared to houses).

Anyway, make sure that you do some comparison shot at various objects once you received it

 

[MorpheusZero]

I don't need no stinkin' SLR... FZ30 FTW!!

Yeah, that doesn't mean I don't want one.... sick of this noise, but 8 usable megapixels and a decent 35-420mm equivalent lens for $500 is hard to beat.

Later on down the road I'm definitely getting something with more megascreens and bigger resolutions though.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I think the difference is quite obvious if you really look for it and don't have a messed up monitor.

You'd mentioned earlier that your lens filter had scratches on it. That would also contribute to a difference in contrast. Not really a fair comparison unless your oriiginal question was whether or not to use THAT particular filter, which IIRC it might have been. Comparing a scratched filter to no filter isn't exactly apples to apples.

 

[dj_mocok]

Yeah that may be true too.

But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scratches?

It's not major but it's there. But who knows it's the reason. But if that's really the reason, then the affect of these tiny scuffs are really major.

I should post you the close up of the filter, but again, I'm too lazy now, hehe..

By the way, you probably heard this before, that "modern" lenses actually don't benefit from UV filter because the coating on the lens is already acting as UV filtering. But when they are talking about "modern", what is modern here? Since AI ? or AF or something? I'm curious to know which lenses are considered modern here. Do you happen to know?

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you guys think of the Nikkor 55-200?

Well, like the 18-55, it has a plastic lens mount and really is produced as an "introductory" lens. That said, I like the 18-55 better than this lens. Slower focus at the long end, combined with the lens having to be wide open most of the time (maximum aperture) create some inconsistent focusing and lower performance. I definitely has its place, though, and performs pretty well stopped down.
Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif this really is worse than audio!

You have recognized NAS and it is clawing at your door, begging to come in.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why not the 70-200mm VR? That's an easy question: 1 X 70-200mm = 2 X 18-200mm = 4-5 X 18-70mm I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise.

You can do the pricing math all day long, and it will drive you bonkers, since companies like Nikon and Canon are masterful at creating price levels where it is almost better to "step up" to another model, while (sometimes) paying too much for a base model. The only exceptions seem to be the kit lenses, since they want you to get the more expensive body.

Anyway, for a D50/D70/D80 etc user, there seem to be three Nikkor lenses for that mid/long telephoto range and in the low to mid price range for quality telephotos (I'm ignoring the $1000+ category)

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX $250 street
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF $500 street
AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED $850 street

I feel that the 70-300 offers the best compromise for quality and an affordable lens in that range. Plus, you get VR and AF-S. That said, keep in mind that constant aperture zooms are really worth the money if you are planning on keeping the lens for life. Constant aperture means the lens does not have to be wide open for an average light condition, improving the image quality.

Good luck with your choices!

 

[gordolindsay]

Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose.

My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper.

She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots.

We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it.

Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation

 

[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gordolindsay /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose. My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper. She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots. We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it. Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation

This,
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/351/cat/12

this,
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/221/cat/30

or this
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/51/cat/22

is what you need

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scrat

Yes, I've seen plenty of used lens ads that say "small scratch or some dust particles ...won't affect quality" and they're probably right. But IMO, a few scratches on a filter or the lens' front element would do much more to diffuse light/reduce contrast, than a clean piece of coated optical glass (filter) over the lens. Each lens usually has 7, 8, 9, or 10 elements (pieces of glass) in them already, so how much can one more hurt? I read one article where someone said "it's like shooting through a window" ... it's not a window, it's a thin piece of precision, coated, optical glass made to be shot through. To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a difference at all between the test shots you did ... and that was with a scratched filter.

And yes I've heard that modern lenses don't need UV filtration, and that's probably true. As far as what would be considered "modern" ... your guess is as good as mine. I"ve also heard that modern lenses (and filters) are made with harder glass and some with scratch-resistant coatings, which is also probably true ... but coatings do wear off eventually ... a little bit every time you clean them. I always buy scratch-resistant coating for my eyeglasses and clean them carefully, but eventually noticeable swirls and scratches do appear. Again, that's why I'd rather be cleaning a filter all the time than the lens itself. My reason for using filters is not for UV protection, it's for damage protection. Every time I clean a filter instead of my front lens element makes me feel I've kept that lens pristine that much longer. When I'm in a wet, foggy, or sandy environment, I like the idea of the filter taking the hit, not my lens. And if and when that accidental bump happens, I feel better having that extra protection. And like I've said, the filter can be removed while shooting if you're truly concerned about a loss of quality .... but those test shots you did, with a scratched filter, convince me that any difference is minuscule. I took some shots of a friend's kittens last weekend, (see below)all with B+W filters left on to protect against nose prints, and I'm more than satisfied with the contrast. In fact, today's lenses are too sharp for most portraiture, so for portraits at least, some dust, a few scratches, or another piece of glass in front of the lens is actually preferable.

IMO, it really boils down to personal priorities and preferences. I'll stop beating this dead horse now.