bruce_greene

Kyle - Actually, I wish I did know the value of VR. I've never had it, but maybe I should try

it. What, me shake the camera? I'm so insulted :-) and you are right.

Shun - I originally intended to get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and maybe a 55-200. It was the

trip to Minneapolis (with the intention of bicycling there) that made me consider the

18-200. I may very well consider the 17-50 f2.8 in the future, depending on my money

situation. I have no idea how to clean the sensor. Just blow dust out?

Michael - I was not prepared for the length the lens could get to, and you are absolutely

right, it isn't airtight (wouldn't that be fun to compensate for?). So, the dust thing was kind

of "blowing smoke". As for the margins, I'm sure that you are right about that.

Thank you for your views, they are valuable to me.

About 7 or 8 years ago I bought an N90 (used) with a Nikkor 35-70, but wanted more

wide angle and traded it for a Tamron 28-80. The Tamron didn't feel quite as smooth or

look quite as nice as the Nikkor, yet the lens worked well and the photos were good.

I have heard from professionals that if you go for a third party lens, the only one they

would go for (in general) would be Tamron. I have heard that sometimes Tokina comes out

with a really nice product and if it should be the kind of lens you are looking for, then go

for it. I have heard few praises for Sigma. I had a Tokina 80-200MF f3.5-4.5 that worked

on both my Nikkormat and metered well on the N90 and it had no serious flaws; it focused

and zoomed (but the zoom was push-pull and would lengthen by gravity).

Anyone can buy low dispersion glass, but build quality is where good reputations are

made. Or so I understand it. I am an amatuer in photography, but a pro in technical fields

such as computer repair and anything that requires a mechanical aptitude. I generally shy

away from lenses that aren't Nikkor or Tamron, but maybe I am wrong.

I recently bought a D70 in like new condition, and considered the Ken Rockwell idea of the inexpensive

Nikon 18-55 and 55-200vr combo. With the advice of the (prrofessional) camera store, I chose the

Tamron 18-200 because they have a ten day return policy. I was seriously considering the extra $350+

for the Nikon 18-200. Although I do know how to change lenses (I did so on my Nikkormat Ftn and N90), I

do like a single lens solution if reasonable. The camera store people mention that keeping a lens on a

camera would prevent dust on the ccd)

I took about 500 pictures on a trip to Minneapolis (a wedding and indoor and outdoor family shots& a 25

mile bike ride), and a few of the indoor ones were blurred due to low light and camera movement. I wasn't

always paying attention to the shutter speed, and have had it on Aperture priorty out of habit. I am

wondering if the VR may have helped save some of these shots. I still have a couple of days left on the ten

day return and wonder if the Nikon would be a better choice.

Oddly, price is a consideration, but I have one chance to get full credit for the Tamron and go to the

Nikon. To spend or not to spend, that is the question!

BTW, I like the 18-200 range very much. FYI, f5.6 ends (becomes f6) at about 75mm and f6.3 starts at

100-110mm at ISO 1600.

Thank you Brian. That makes me feel better. I suspect that I, like you, will be glad I made the

decision to change,

As for Adobe software, this is where being a Mac specialist really pays off. I have access to

companies with new Macs, Adobe CS3, and expertise to assist me.

As for flash, I suspect (have bot checked) that a decent speedlight will have a bounce card

like the SB-28 did, and that should eliminate it.

As for practicing, I'll get some mannequins and try the flash. Should be free of red eye. I'm

very proud of myself for thinking of this test idea!

To get a Nikon 17-55 f2,8 costs $1199.00 at BH, but the Tamron Zoom SP AF 17-50mm

f/2.8 is just under $400.00. That is about the price of an AF-D 28mm 2.8 (which becomes

a 42mm). The Tamron looks like the best deal.

Everything else DX appears to be f3.5 or higher. So with an extra stop on the lens and

kicking up the ISO, I can avoid a $300 speedlight for a while?

The 50mm is pre-AI. I tried it on the N90 and it wouldn't meter. BTW, one of the

annoyances of the Nikkormat was that the meter just quit working in low light (even with

800 ISO) and on brightly lit days max fstop and max shutter still overexposed 800 and

even 400 film.

With the N90 empty of film, I can set the ISO to 1600 and experiment. Thank you for the

good ideas,

I will be seeing my family again in a week or two and will definitely bring a camera.

But which one? The HP 3,2MP P&S that was a gift about 3 years ago, the old Nikkormat FTn with a 50mm

f2 that I bought while in high school, or the N90 with the Tamron 28-80 f3.5-5.6. There is also an old

Tokina 80-200 3.5-4.5 AI that works (meters) well on both Nikons. Both lenses get used.

The N90 has no flash (the FTn has no shoe!), and even with 800 speed film, indoor photos are not likely. I

could buy an SB-28 for about $100., but I'm really wondering if it is time for a DSLR.

When I first got the N90, it had a Nikkor 35-70 on it, but the 35 wasn't wide enough so I traded it for the

Tamron 28-80 the next day. Because P&S digital cameras almost never go to 28mm wide, the DSLRs seem

the way for me to go.

I also really hate the red-eye that P&S types seem to give. Some really nice people look (inappropriately)

like they come from hell, but other people it seems to suit :-) The red eye reduction in the little HP doesn't

seem to help, and I don't like waiting for the camera to get ready to take a photo.

A pro photographer friend of mine has his D70 sitting without a lens on it while his D100 does all the

work. He says that the images from the D100 are better. So I might buy his D70.

I like the idea of being free from the film processing. I can take stupid photos and not feel stupid paying

for them. I should be able to get more that 36 shots and don't have to wait. But a few hundred bucks is a

few hundred bucks.

I want a flash; maybe the one in the D70 is sufficient for family photos. I would like a 28-80 equivalent

lens, but maybe I should wait and get one thats f2.8 (probably Tamron for price & quality) instead of the

f3.5. For now I could use my 28-80 AF-D type even though it will become a 42-120.

Moving to digital is tempting. Either I invest in the old system (SB-28) or cut my losses and jump into a

D70 where proper lenses and speedlight will have to wait several months. Your thoughts and experiences

are appreciated.

Thanks a lot, Rob. I was okay until I read your response and I'm starting to get nervous as

well.

The thing I dislike about point and shoots is that the lenses only go to about 35mm (film

equivalent) for wide angle. To photograph people around a table in a small room, 28 or

24mm equivalent focal lengths would be needed.

That's why I like SLRs, lots of options. But more baggage.

The filter is 67mm.

Why get a filter? Don't most people just rubber band saran wrap over their lenses? I always

do. And my blind friends all compliment my photos.

As for being scared, it isn't like these things are made out of glass. :-) People carry them

around all over the place. unless you are often falling into pools, wells, or down rocky

slopes, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, I had my N90 in a handlebar bar on my

bicycle. They are made to be carried, which is why photographers often go out to shoot

rather than having mountains delivered to their door.