|
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you have a Nikon Digital SLR, you need to try this lens for a moment. If you do, you will own one. OutdoorsFIRST's Nikon D50 and D80 will be armed with this lens depending on the image requirement.
AF-S Nikkor 18-200MM1:3.5-5.6 with Vibration Reduction. Tight, silky smooth, and a joy to use. I can shoot in near darkness with no flash and get a CRYSTAL clear image every time. I can now reach out to 200 in low light or shoot a closeup at dawn or dusk. My images are going to be MUCH better in the future! | |
| | |
| I also hear a lot of good things about this lens. I don't have one, but I may need to check into it. A lot of people also like this lens for the fact that you can cover such a wide range with only one lens. You don't need a wide-angle and a zoom, as you have them all in one. That means changing lenses less often, which reduces the chances of getting dust on your camera's sensor. I'll watch for the pics Steve, good luck with the new toy. | |
| | |
Posts: 109
| I got mine early summer after being on a waiting list for months... I sold off 3 other lens once I got it! It really is nice, and I highly recommend spending the money on it... in the long run you will save money verse buying multiple lenses. | |
| | |
Posts: 2068
| I absolutely love the Nikon D40x I picked up this year. Would this lens allow me to shoot in near darkness "better" than the AF-S Nikkor 18-55MM1:3.5-5.6 that I currently use? | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Absolutely incredible difference, yes. You can shoot close up and REALLY out there to 200, and the VR allows you to shoot in near darkness with no blurry images. | |
| | |
| The VR may help a little bit with that, but I would not expect a major difference. It would give you a much larger range in shooting distance though. I use Prime lenses most of the time, which have no zoom action. The advantage of Primes is that some have a maximum aperture of f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens lets in more light than an f/3.5-5.6. The main disadvantage though, is that you need to move closer or further back with your feet to get the shot you're after. I also have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, which is great for low light shots, but not so great for close up shots. I think many people like this lens because they can use it in place of two lenses. Instead of having an 18-55mm and a 70-200mm lens, you'd simply just use this one. My dream lens would be an 18-500mm f/1.8. If it existed, it would cost thousands of dollars, but it would sure be sweet.  | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Believe me, there is a major difference. I have a set of Sigma lenses too,a 28 to 90 and a 70 to 300 and the original Nikkor 18 to 55 that came with the camera. I used the 18 to 55 for close-up work indoors near the stage at the Walleye events we covered last year, the 28 to 90 outside where I needed to be able to shoot close and then out from 25 feet in the time it took to move that distance. I used the 70 to 300 1:4-5.6 from behind the stage and on the water, but had trouble with boat movement; both subject and platform.
I took quite a few blurred images in the very early morning as the Pros readied for the event. I bet I won't have to toss out anywhere near as many images next year.
This lens will do all the above with two settings for the VR, Normal, and Active. Normal is vibration reduction from a normal 'solid' platform, shooting with no tripod under any condition. Active allows me to shoot a moving subject from a moving platform, something near impossible from my other lenses if I wanted clear images.
I can shoot in ambient light with the 18 to 200 where I would have been forced, and I mean forced to use a tripod, no problem, no blurry images. I'm impressed. | |
| | |
Posts: 95
Location: LOTW every chance I get | Yeah, I've got the 70-300 VR lens and it is beautiful. I know what Derry's is saying, it isn't the same as a fast prime lens, in that it doesn't help in low light if the subject is moving. But for still or slow moving subjects in low light, it is amazing what you can get away with. VERY sharp lens! Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 89
| how much? | |
| | |
| Hope this link works.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=Nikon+18-
You can check this site, or do a search. Looks like used ones are available too. $600.00+ seems to be the going rate.
Edited by Derrys 12/10/2007 8:01 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Brad,
Zach has a few of the prime lenses we use for shooting catalogs and the like, do you have a favorite for portraits? | |
| | |
| I like the 50mm f/1.8 a lot, and most people consider it the best deal in photography for the price. You can usually buy it brand new for just over $100.00. The 85mm f/1.8 is probably used as a portrait lens by as many or more people. It costs much more, but is also very useful at times. I saved $100.00 by buying mine from keh.com. They sell all kinds of used cameras and lenses, and they're a company you can trust. I've actually bought 3 lenses from them and I saved about $600.00 off of new. They grade their stuff on the low end too. If they have it listed at "Bargain" price, it'll probably look almost new.
I use the 50mm a lot when fishing, but it sometimes isn't wide enough. If you're in a boat with another guy, and are trying to take a photo of him holding a Muskie, you need to be a good distance away to not cut off the tail of the fish. I bought a 28mm f/2.8 Prime to help with that issue, but it's just not as sharp as the 50mm. The 50mm at f/5.6 is about the sharpest you'll see. Of course if you're fishing really early, or kind of late you may not be able to use f/5.6 without getting some blur.
Anyway, I kind of rambled on there but either of the 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 Primes would make good portrait lenses. In my personal opinion, if you own a Nikon DSLR, you should own the 50mm Prime. Great lens at any price. | |
| |
|
What a LENS!