[perplex]

Just be aware that mbriant has the AF-S version which is quite a bit more pricey. However optically I don't think there is that much difference?

I've just acquired a push-pull version and in the process of testing it out

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by perplex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just be aware that mbriant has the AF-S version which is quite a bit more pricey. However optically I don't think there is that much difference? I've just acquired a push-pull version and in the process of testing it out

Make sure to tell us how you like it.

 

[perplex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Make sure to tell us how you like it.

I don't really have anything to compare it to and I'm a beginner/unexperienced in photography. I'm just learning and really need to work on composition.

Build quality wise it seems very solid compared to my kit lens 18-70 and 50 1.4. Though the 50 1.4 is pretty good itself.

I took this shot of a cat yesterday, which I think is cool. I'm practising composition

. Also the sun just hid itself so I couldn't get it as sharp as I'd have liked.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Shot these while walking around with the wife near here.

All shot with a D300 and 18-200 Nikon lens handheld. Tripod and monopod purchases are coming around SOON!

(I also posted them over at NikonCafe, but thought I'd share them here since I've not been around in almost two months.

)

 

[dj_mocok]

I must admit I love my lens

 

[milkpowder]

I took some pictures with a D300 w/ 18-200 VR a couple days ago at a family outing in Hong Kong.

It was my first real opportunity to use a DSLR and I really had trouble taking sharp, in focus photos. I also noticed that the 18-200 is not so sharp when at full zoom, or it might just be my incompetence

A few more here:
Picasa Web Albums - milkpowder - Un sejour a l...

Also, what settings do you use to take sharp photos of the moon? I had real trouble doing so...

This was my best attempt:

Anyway, I'm hooked. The D300 is my dad's and I really want one myself! It's hugely capable and was much easier to use than I thought. The screen is ultra-high res. Bird spotting was a huge problem due to the limitations posed by the lens and I am keen to get my dad to buy a telephoto. An uncle of mine recommended the Swarovski STS80HD. Has anyone used one?

 

[Towert7]

Ah, so that's how the richest 1% live. I see.............

 

[milkpowder]

Just been playing around again. The auto WB is quite terrible in less-than-ideal light conditions. Setting the WB properly is still something I've yet to learn to do. I'm also a very inefficient "photographer". Out of the 300-400 or so photos I took, only a couple dozen actually turned out to be relatively decent ones. Just imagine what it would've been like back in the days of the film camera

 

[Towert7]

Ah, lots of us started off trying different things and learning along the way. I know when I first started out, I would take many pictures of the same scene just so there was a chance that one came out nice, adjusting various settings. As you get better and more familiar with the camera, pictures will come more naturally. You'll end up taking less pictures and getting more keepers at the same time. You'll also start to visualize which will be better pictures than others.

You're doing the right thing though, playing around. That's a great way to learn, just by doing. All it takes now is time.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Moon pics definitely seem like a realm best suited for use with a tripod. I took a handheld few the other day, just for the hell of it. My best results came at ISO100, 1/125", F8. Even stopped way down as such, I got a much better pic from my 180mm prime than from the 18-200 (this is a 100% crop):

Auto WB problems are definitely a good excuse for RAW+JPEG and a big CF card!

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, lots of us started off trying different things and learning along the way. I know when I first started out, I would take many pictures of the same scene just so there was a chance that one came out nice, adjusting various settings. As you get better and more familiar with the camera, pictures will come more naturally. You'll end up taking less pictures and getting more keepers at the same time. You'll also start to visualize which will be better pictures than others. You're doing the right thing though, playing around. That's a great way to learn, just by doing. All it takes now is time.

Lots of time

I'm eyeing a more basic DSLR for myself, something along the lines of a D60 kit w/ 18-55VR. So far, I'm liking what I've read about it but the three zone AF seems a bit too basic, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Moon pics definitely seem like a realm best suited for use with a tripod. I took a handheld few the other day, just for the hell of it. My best results came at ISO100, 1/125", F8. Even stopped way down as such, I got a much better pic from my 180mm prime than from the 18-200 (this is a 100% crop): Auto WB problems are definitely a good excuse for RAW+JPEG and a big CF card!

Very impressive moon picture! My dad's tripod is very old and cheap, which might be why I had trouble.

 

[milkpowder]

A few more shots yesterday...

F/5.3, 1/80, ISO 200. Should I have increased the exposure, or just reduce shutter speed?

I have a general question. Why get two-three lens to cover the same range when you can use just one lens? I was just chatting casually to a friend who is into photography and he told me he is waiting for a Nikkor 14-24 and a 24-70. He currently has a 70-200 VR, which means that he'll have 14-200 covered. Couldn't you do that with just one lens, eg 18-200, give or take a few mm.

Another question. This friend of mine also said that 50 (or was it 75 or 85mm?) is close to the natural field of vision of a human being. Is that true?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a general question. Why get two-three lens to cover the same range when you can use just one lens? I was just chatting casually to a friend who is into photography and he told me he is waiting for a Nikkor 14-24 and a 24-70. He currently has a 70-200 VR, which means that he'll have 14-200 covered. Couldn't you do that with just one lens, eg 18-200, give or take a few mm. Another question. This friend of mine also said that 50 (or was it 75 or 85mm?) is close to the natural field of vision of a human being. Is that true?

On a DX camera, it is either the 50mm or 35mm that is close to what we see. For me at least. How can you check? Keep both eyes open and focus on something. Bring the viewfinder in front of one eye. Change the focal length until the picture you see in the viewfinder nicely overlaps with the image you see in the other eye (ie, make them the same size visually).

Why get multiple lenses? Well one thing is for sure, you loose the convenience factor! However, they are better lenses in general. They will take, in general, sharper pictures, may have more saturated colors, can open up to wider apertures (fixed minimum f-stops), and will probably have less barrel distortion.
The 18-200VR is no shabby lens. It covers a very wide range, with VRII, is small, somewhat light, etc etc. But it lacks the low f-stops (3.5 vs. 1.8 for example) and will have a little barrel distortion near the extremes. For 800$ it's a great lens, but it is bested by some of these pro lenses.

Once you try your first good pro lens (either 1 of the three you mentioned, or a fixed focal length), you'll see the difference right off the bat.

 

[milkpowder]

Thanks!

I understand that separate lens will tend to give better results/quality. Now if you would bear with me, again

. Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other? If 50mm is close to what we see, do I switch to the 70-200 whenever I want to view something at closer than what I normally can see?

Re: low F-stops
Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages?

Lastly, is there any point in getting 1k+ 'pro' lens for a more modest camera like a D60? Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?

 

[RYCeT]

Hi, Milkpowder, my advise, shoot more and if possible use the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. From that lens, zoom with your feet, with enough shootings, you will eventually learn which range will suit your needs. However, be warn, 50mm 1.8 produce a good result which hard to match from consumer zoom lenses. I got rid of my Canon 17-55 2.8 is because I can't justify the price compare to what my nifty fifty able to produce.