chris_margaritis

I have owned and used the same Vivitar 283 since 1976. I have never broken any part of it, and the thing still works reliably. It does have high voltage output so I don't use it directly on my dSLR, but it slaves fine and is as dependable as ever.

For the record, I found its sensor amazingly accurate. Set the aperture, shot thousands and got consistent results. It was also powerful for the money, had versatile options, good battery life, compact and was one of the first to have a 15 minute rechargable NiCad system.

Sure, I've got a new flash with the LCD and a myriad of options, but frankly, I get more lost in the menus and waste more time than I did with the simple design of the 283. Set the dial, aperture and shoot. I have used as options: the SC-1 remote cord, VP-1 variable manual dial, and the old (forgotten?) metal 8x10 reflector-card adapter, as well as the 15 minute NiCad system.

Frankly, while I admit its old and outdated, its still the most versatile, cost effecient, dependable and easy to use system I have ever used. Its no accident it was manufactured for 30 straight years. I guess every good thing has to come to an end though. Sorry to see it go.

I have spent some time now with the 18-200, and I am finding the lens quite remarkable on several fronts, and much more than expected.

Until this lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 was the lens that remained on my D200 for over 90% of the time. The 18-200 has now taken that position, only now the percentage has gone way beyond 90%. The lens is remarkably sharp, lightweight, and noticeably smaller than the 17-55. It is actually less costly as well. I would still prefer the 17-55 for basketball. The ED glass is well designed and the lens is a lot sharper than any other large range Nikkor zoom. It sets a new standard.

I find the distortion well within tolerance, the only real negative is that the bokeh really is harsh, but not too much of a distraction. Its adequate for a candid portrait, but I'll stick to 85/105mm for serious portrait work and better bokeh.

The range of this lens is astounding, and it took a while to adjust to having so much range. I was actually surprised at how unaccustomed my eye was to having so much 'grabbability'. I got the lens to have the flexibility, but once I began using it, it was like the first time I slept in a large bed as a kid. I just loved the room and roamed and rolled with great pleasure that just felt liberating and luxurious.

All specs say this lens focuses down to 1.5 feet, but my lens can focus down to about 10 inches at 200mm. Really! Set the lens at closest focus and run a ruler down from the rim and look, its the 10 that's in focus. Was there an upgrade in capability since is release?

The VR has definitely improved from the earlier versions. I have the 80-400 and the 18-200 is just a lot smoother and pans better. Its also quieter.

Finally, the lens handles well. It is not the fastest AF-S, but still better than any non silent wave lens. Though the rings are not well dampened or tight, they're not particularly loose either. The zoom will creep with gravity and shake, particularly downward, but not as bad as some lenses. Focusing is constant throughout the zoom range, so if you zoom in for a precise focus and then zoom out, your focus remains accurate. The 80-400 does not do this.

I waited well over 2 months for this lens, and from what I gather it is still a wait and in great demand. Impatience aside, that is good news, as it means the lens is immensely popular right out of the chute, so that speaks volumes to those considering its purchase. Considering its remarkable range, features and performance, this lens suddenly seems like a great deal to me, especially compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 which is $450 or 60% more. Right now there is nothing comparable to this lens in the general purpose category, not even close. The Canon 28-300 has the range, but is too much on the telephoto side for non full frame digital. It is also huge, heavy and 3x the price.

This lens is not only a must have for most Nikonians, but a long awaited and much needed accomplishment for Nikon. My guess is that this lens will continue to fly off the shelf and push higher the parameters and expectations of Nikon equipment. It shows that Nikon is not caving to Canon, which is good for both companies. It is as many have said, hardly a perfect lens, but it is a great, and I mean GREAT general purpose lens with no peer. A must for travel, and IMHO a buy no digital SLR user will regret.

ALL ZOOMS show distortion. So unless this is an argument for carrying around a half dozen or so primes, the arguments presented here are moot. Now while most super-zooms do exhibit extra distortion, Rockwell's report here would indicate that the parameters of this glass are well within tolerant for a decently designed zoom. The real issue with this lens was the expectation that it lacked sharpness like previous Nikkor super-zooms, and from all reports, this lens has stepped things up a notch, hence the higher price (what else is new)?

Every lens has a tradeoff. Higher focal length gives you less depth of field. Higher zoom ratios usually yield smaller apertures, bigger lenses and distortion at both ends, but adds the huge convenience of having a multi-purpose lens ready for any situation. I would suggest that provided this lens is as sharp as proclaimed, its worth the price (though I wish it was lower) for one very simple reason. Sure, the guy with the primes will get low distortion and possibly more speed from his lens (though no VR), but will he have the right lens on his camera in a pinch, or lose a critical shot while fumbling around for the right glass? Certainly if you are out shooting buildings and other stationery objects, such a lens is a poor choice, so why argue it? In fact, its a ridiculous argument to consider a super-zoom for architecture, or to argue against it for that purpose. Anyone who would buy this lens for shouldn't be here posting in the first place. Wide angle prime and do your job.

However, most photography is candid and spontaneous. Catching an action, expression, or any unique and passing moment near or far, such a range ready to go far outweighs minor distortion issues (and Rockwell is right, most eyes don't see such distortion anyway). All wides have barrel distortion, our eyes have learned that. How does it matter anyway if you miss the shot because you had the wrong lens or were switching when the moment passed you by?

One last issue; the dreaded CCD dust issue. What difference does it make if you are correcting in photoshop for barrel or pincushion or having to edit for dust? CCDs have the disadvantage of static attraction due to the materials used and the voltage. The more you swap lenses, the more dust you'll get. A super-zoom is a smart idea for a low priced sealed (finally) digital like the D200.

For those who argue lens speed, the aperture starts at f/3.5 so f/5.6 is only a stop and a half difference. Sure, that's two stops slower than an f/2.8, but those expensive f/2.8 lenses are two stops slower than the old reliable 50mm f/1.4, which sadly is hardly even used anymore (killed by the DX format). No one complains about that loss of speed. Back in my film days I could push process to 3200, but it was horribly grainy. The D200 is far better at higher speeds than film, so why is speed suddenly an issue? If so, move over to the $3k Canon 5D which is about two stops cleaner at high ISO (AND brings your 50mm back to life). I've been considering this move myself, but I ordered a D200 and am planning (when more available) to get the 18-200mm. Why sacrifice all my glass, big bucks and a better platform (I just like Nikon's camera implentation better) for a few minor details?

Some of the points made here are simply exaggerated. This lens is a useful tool for a specific purpose, and so far looks to be better than anything else that's come down the pike, so it is a welcome addition to the venerable Nikkor line.

http://www.members.cox.net/d60-d100/Review.shtml

I have all the lenses in question (or had). Just sold the 18-70 and will sell the 24-85 as well. Does that answer the question?

The two G lenses are comparable in performance to each other, comfortable and easy to handle, fairly well built (if plasticky), good contrast, relatively sharp (especially when stopped down) and fast on the auto focus. The slower aperture is not too big an issue except for portrait DOF. If you zoom on either, you will have to refocus (not so on the 17-55). They are also light and great travel lenses.

I still dumped them. Why?

My photography was weened on primes, and I'm only now getting finally into zooms and yes, even auto-focus (mostly because they are good enough at this point to compete with my old primes). Try though I might, I still shoot mostly wide open, and here is where the value of the 17-55 shines. The G lenses really need to be stopped down (a real aperture killer) to get to their optimum performance, so they are pretty much amateur or outdoor lenses. I have to agree that on a $4k camera, it makes little sense to dope it down with a $300 lens.

I am on a limited budget and sold my D100 and old zooms (and even my 20mm prime) for a discounted D2H and the 17-55. I've just made this move and done only a few tests, but it clearly performs and is tack sharp at f/2.8. It's heavy (way heavy on the D2H) but solid. It doesn't auto-focus all that much faster than the G lenses, and its narrow zoom ring is a bit awkward. But clearly it is THE lense for digital portraiture; great range, sharp optics, nice bokeh and f/2.8 DOF is a must. Wish it was lower priced, but hey, its going to live on my camera.

If interested, it is complimented in my case by the 80-400 VR and the over hyped 70-210D for travel (along with my primes).