adam zyto

<p>Incredible that this lens will cost photographers $800 or so.<br>

Hey, and thanks a lot Nikon for finally admitting the lens creep problem.<br>

Note to Tokina: get busy folks. Here's your chance. Use the skills you used to produce the excellent 11-16 f2.8 and 12-24 f4 and sell a well built 18-200 for $450-$500. Tokina, you can do this! </p>

 

<p>A couple of years ago I would not have considered non-Nikon lenses - I was wrong and have learned that you have to take it one lens at a time. Two of the non-Nikon lenses I do have are the Tokina 12-24 which is excellent and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. The Sigma is a rare gem and should be in every shooter's camera bag. It can be picked up used for under $300, the best bargain in photography. </p>

<p>I've been taking pics since 1980 and gone through about 20 lenses. The Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is by far the best. I love it, best of luck with your decision. </p>

<p>I see nothing really interesting in today's news. The only way I'd consider upgrading is if/when Nikon offers a mid level ($1500) camera body with the ISO perfprmance of the D3. That would be cool.</p>

<p>Great shots everyone. I really enjoy this weekly thread and seeing all your wonderful photos. Here's my contribution - I was at a local war memorial and couldn't get any good shots. The scene just didn't have it until I was ready to leave and noticed a Viet Nam Veteran parked by the exit. <br>

---------- tech info--------<br>

D300 with 70-200vr @ 70mm, Exposure: 1/125 f 5.6 ISO 200</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have not purchased from Adorama in the past but based on what I read here in Helen's posts, I will certainly consider Adorama in the future. Kudos Helen!</p>

<p>Nikon D300 with Sigma 30mm f1.4</p><div></div>

<p>Southampton, Long Island</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry for the double post, not sure what I did wrong up top. Webmaster, please zap the above and leave this one</p><div></div>

<p>Libby, I purchased this lens and was very disappointed with it. The zoom was loose (lens creep, I think is what they call it) and slow to focus, and not smooth. I hated it and sold it. I had the opportunity to get another one for a song so I checked it out and picked it up. This one is fine - night and day versus the first one I owned. I've read (and posted here) quite a lot about this lens and it seems to me that there are some duds out there. My advice, test the lens out for the problems you've heard about. The concerns raised here about this lens point to very real quality control issues.</p>

<p>Nikon D300 with Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 </p><div></div>

<p>I have the Tokina 12-24 which I really like a lot, even more than the new Nikon 10-24 which I've had access to recently. The solid build on the Tokina is impressive and I don't mind a little extra weight. Slightly off topic - I recently picked up a gently used Sigma 30mm 1.4 and it is simply outstanding. I compared it to the new Nikon 35 1.8 and frankly there's no comparison. I was never impressed with Sigma lenses until this one. </p>

<p>My favorite vacation lens is my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. It's also my favorite lens, period. An absolute gem.</p>

<p>Tobey, thanks for the link to Sameys but as I tried to order, I got the message that the lens is not available. To Lex's question - yes, I did ask some of the stores and they said that Nikon does not provide details, they'll be shipped when they're shipped. The "shortages" are well known in the area. I'd like to understand why this situation exists. </p>

<p>I have a general question on lens availability. I’m a Nikon shooter and after reading the many discussions I’m certain that I want the new Nikon 35mm f1.8 and the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to add to my gear. The trouble is that these lenses are out of stock at every place I’ve looked (NYC). Why is that? Doesn’t Tokina know that they have a winner with the 11-16? Why don’t they produce more of this lens when the market is so strong for it? Same for the Nikon 35mm f1.8. To those who know more about these production issues than I..can you please explain why such lens shortages exist. Thanks in advance. </p>

<p>I don't know the 16-85mm, but I do know the 17-55mm 2.8 and it's spectacular. Of the many lenses I've owned in my 25 years shooting, this one is the finest. I love it. </p>

<p>I've been though a bunch of Nikon lenses, Canon and Minolta lenses over my 20 years shooting. I've only loved one lens and that's the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. My advice - save up for it. </p>

<p>I had my 18-200 for about a year. Creep and low focus became a major drag so I finally sold it. I've had about 10 Nikon lenses over the years, this was a total dud.</p>

<p>Worst Nikon lens? That's easy - the 18-200vr. Slow to focus, loose, not sharp. Sold it after a year...what a relief! </p>

<p>I've owned about 10 Nikon lenses, the 17-55 2.8 is a gem. Not cheap, but worth every cent. </p>

<p>Today on my way home from work. My new D300 doesn't disappoint.</p><div></div>

<p>Yours is not a dud. It's the way this lens functions. Mine also had trouble focusing and was never sharp. So I got rid of it. Is this lens versatile? Yes. High quality? Debatable. </p>

<p>Since getting into Digital SLR shooting, I've gone through a bunch of lenses and last week upgraded from the D80 to the D300 and got rid of the disappointing 18-200. Of all my purchases/sales, the absolute best gear decision I made was purchasing the Nikon 17-55 2.8. I can't say enough about it. </p>

<p>Thanks. I wonder why some ads describe it as "VR" and others as "VR II"</p>

<p>I finally sold my 18-200, never liked it - slow to focus and not as sharp as my other lenses. I see that the current version of this lens is a "VR II", does anyone here know what the II has that the original does not? Thanks. </p>