marek_stepien

<p>I love my 24-70/2.8. I use it on D200 to take pictures of my triples.<br>

However, Thom Hogan suggests Nikon may replace it with a VR version this year. I think it is worth waiting. Then you may buy the VR version or you may buy the current version about 30% cheaper.</p>

<p>You cannot use Tokina 11-16 on D3. There are two other options:<br>

1. Nikon 14-24/2.8 - an Excellent lens, but expensive and big<br>

2. Nikon 12-24/4.0 - very good on D300, and you can use part of the zoom (17-24mm) on D3.</p>

<p>Gregory,<br>

There is a only few difference between those two cameras.<br>

1. D60 has 10.2 M sensor and D40 has 6.1 M sensor<br />2. D60 takes 3 frames per second; and D40 2.5 frames per second.<br>

Other than that I do not remember other differences. <br />I have D40 and I like it. If I would choose again, I would choose D40.<br>

D40 with 18-55 lens costs now $409 at amazon.com - that is stealing. <br />D60 with 18-55 lens costs $516, that is not bad either.<br>

I would add Nikon 55-200 VR lens to it for about $150 (there are two versions of that <br />lens - with VR and without, I would definetely choose with VR, that means Vibration Reduction). <br />Both lenses 18-55 and 55-200 VR are pretty good. <br />Testers say that they are better than corresponding Canon lenses.</p>

<p>

<p>Joel: Yes Photozone shows Tokina 11-16 as much sharper than Sigma 10-20, however comparing the two brand new lenses I had, I did not see so much difference, and Sigma was better on the wide end (except corners) and mixed colors better, that meant it had better contrast. Also I liked pictures best from Sigma. I would stay with Tokina if it would be better for me. It may be that I got sample variation, an exceptional good Sigma and only a so-so Tokina.<br />Of course I compared them on the same aperture. Besides, if I remember well there was no much difference in Tokina sharpness from 2.8 to 8. It was almost eaqually sharp at 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8, both in the center and corners. That was the strong side of Tokina. Sigma was not so even.</p>

</p>

<p>Last year I compared Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16, and at the same time I rented Nikon 12-24 and Nikon 14-24 and compared them as well.<br>

To the contrary what it is most written here, Sigma 10-20 was sharper than Tokina 11-16, especially at the wider end, and gave better contrast, except corners. It must be a sample variation. I keep Sigma and I'm happy. Now when I compare Sigma with my Nikon 18-200, Sigma is much sharper and gives a better contrast and colors. I did not consider Tokina 12-24 since that lens has problem with contrast, even if it is pretty sharp.<br>

Nikon 12-24 was a little better, especially it was pretty even out to the corners, but at double cost, so I skipped it. However Nikon 14-24 was an extraordinary lens. It was very sharp, but I liked most how it mixed the colors. This lens is on my list to buy.</p>

Photo Zone gave NIKON 16-85 an extremly good verdict at:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

They even say "the lens is somewhat more desirable than the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED", except the slowness.

I have NIKON 18-200 and I like it as a general travel lens. It gives crispy colors and good contrast, but it is not

particular sharp. If I would buy today, I would buy 16-85/3.5-5.6.

Photo Zone gave NIKON 16-85 an extremly good verdict at:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

They even say "the lens is somewhat more desirable than the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED", except the slowness.

I have NIKON 18-200 and I like it as a general travel lens. It gives crispy colors and good contrast, but it is not particular sharp. If I would buy today, I would buy 16-85/3.5-5.6.

Shun (above) gave a very good answer.

I will add that D200 has much better ergonomics than D90. Two years ago I was comparing D200 to D80 (it has the

same ergonomics as D90), and D200 was a clear winner. I decided to buy D200 even if at that time it was almost

twice as much expensive.

However, with D90 you get better high ISO performance, better jpeg conversion, live view, video feature, improved

user interface, bigger and better LCD.

Another way to look is, D200 was made for serious photo armatures, and D80 (and D90) was made for trendy people

who like technical gadgets. If you belong clearly to one of the above categories, the choice is obvious. If you are mix,

then you have a thought choice.

If I would buy know, I would most likely buy D300, or ... D200 if money would be concern.

I had Tokina 11-16 for a couple of weeks, and did not fully liked it. Then I bought Sigma 10-20, compared both and

returned Tokina. Both lenses were very sharp, overall Tokina a little bit sharper, especially far in the corners.

However, Sigma gave a little bit better colors, and the pictures seemed to be more lively. When I was comparing

them I also rented Nikons 12-24 and 14-24. Nikon 12-24 was a tiny bit better than Sigma, in both sharpnes and

colors, but the price difference (almost $500) did not justify it.

However, I falled in love with Nikon 14-24. It is heavy, big, and the front lens exposed for scratches. I love it not so

much for it's sharpness, but for the colors it gave. I have never seen so crisp and vivid pictures. This lens is on my

list to buy.

Last weekend I was comparing Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16. Also I have rented Nikon 12-24 and 14-24. The

results were interesting. In house Sigma was sharper than Tokina, however outside Tokina was a little bit sharper. I

think because outside I compared long distance (about 30-40 feet), and inhouse short distances 5-15 feet. Even if

Sigmas corner were pretty soft, Sigma mixes colors better -- and that was desicive for me. Another interesting thing

I noticed is that Sigma overexposed 1/3-1/5 step more than Tokina in almost all pictures. I could not clarify that. I

think because Sigma gives much warmer colors (visible clearly in .NEF format), and that was luring the D200

system. I keep Sigma and I returned Tokina. Generaly I liked Nikon 12-24, and I would buy it instead if the price

would be closed to the Sigma level. It was just a little, little bit sharper then Sigma and Tokina.

However, Nikon 14-24 is from another class. It is big, heavy and it was not much sharper than the other lenses, but

the colors it gave were incredible. I have never seen so much clarity and intensivity in colors. I already desided to buy

it when I have resources.

Jan, did you try D200?

If you try it you will think it has been designed especially for my hands.

I waited for 50mm 1.8 lens almost two months. I ordered it on amazon.com before Christmas and received it yesterday.

It looks Nikon sells more SLR stuff than expected. Nobody complains on not having enough some of the coolpix "toys".

As Thom http://www.bythom.com/ writes, Nikons is sellin about 40% more DSLRs now than a year ago.

Check this excellent Manfrotto 3021BPRO tripod for $153.

http://www.amazon.com/Bogen-Manfrotto-3021BPRO-Professional-Tripod-without/dp/B00006I52Z/sr=8-2/qid=1168901040/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-9132343-1515201?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

Myself, I bought the following GITZO G2220 Explorer (I thought it was better than Manfrotto 3021BPRO) and ... after one week of using it one of the srews broke. I sent it to Bohen for repair and received it back after TWO MONTHS AND SEVEN DAYS. When I called them thay said thay were waiting for the screw from Gitzo:

http://www.amazon.com/GITZO-G2220-Explorer-Camera-Tripod/dp/B00006I59Z/sr=1-1/qid=1168901305/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9132343-1515201?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

Even if Gitzo is bought by Manfrotto now, I would go with the original Manfrotto 3021BPRO tripod, if I would have to choose again.

Marek

John, you are not only choosing between D80 and 30D, but you are also between the Nikon and Canon systems.

Both systems are good, but there are some differences between them. If you are a technical geek or sport photographer you would probable like most Canon. If you a "creative" person or nature photographer, you would probable like most Nikon. I'm the latter. I started with Canon (A-1) 20 years ago, and I did not like the camera because I had to focus too much on the technical aspects of the camera. After a year I changed to Nikon (FA) and I loved it and other Nikon SLRs after that. I believe that Nikons gears force you to think more on the subject and not so much on the technology used in the camera.

A similar situation is between D80 and 30D. The technical specifications of Canon 30D are impressive (5 fps or shutter 1/8000), but if you would take pictures with D80 and 30D for a week, you would stay with D80 for sure (if you are not a technical geek).

Marek

I also bought a D80 and then returned for a D200 because I have a couple of manual focus lenses (35/1.4, 85/2.0).

D200 feels much better in my hand, and I'm happy that I exchanged D80 to D200. However, there are two things in D80 that I liked. First, it is a lighter camera, second the battery holds three times as long as on D200.

I think it is worth to pay $300 more for D200. I would suggest to go to a photo shop and hold for a while both cameras. I'm sure if you take D200 in your hand, you will go out with it.

If you do a lot of travel you should consider D40. If you do assigments at home then D200. I would skip D80.

Thanks to all of you. I agree with Mark, in macro mode autofocus is not useful.

Thanks again,

Marek

I have 18-55 and I'm amaised by its sharpness.

There are three big differences between those two lenses.

1. 18-70 has better contrast (important in color photography)

2. 18-70 is better build

3. 18-70 is almost three times more expensive

FA...?

Nikon FA was a great Nikon camera introduced twenty 23 ago. Similar to D80 now.

Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FA

Check the following webpages which compare D80 and EOS400D:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-11396_7-6654246-1.html?tag=prmo1

http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-24308.html?tag=txt

I just bought Nikon D200 with 18-200, and it came with the factory software A 2.00 B 1.00 too. In the box it was a "Notice to users of the D200" telling that this version have additions to the D200 manual. The additions are: Wireless Transmitter and Image Authentication.

So you are lucky having the new Nikon firmware already installed on the camera. You may read about that firmware at: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form