martin_aspeli

FWIW, I never knew this until closely before I upgraded to a D300 (for this and other

reasons). I don't think it's a huge problem, since there are many good and affordable AF-S

lenses, but the very term - AF-S - is cryptic to a beginner. I am not expecting Nikon to write

in big letters on the box "will not work with lots of lenses you may buy", but salesmen and

the manual should make this stuff clear.

I wonder what the cost/size/weight implications would've been of a D40 with an AF-D motor

in it. It certainly would've reduced confusion.

I don't think I could afford the Nikkor 17-50 (not 55, AFAICS). I think in the end, this will

come down to whether I'll regret not having the 50-200mm range on the camera, or whether

I'll regret having a relatively slow lens. :)

Right, I'm sorry... I've become one of these annoying people who won't let something go and posts

several threads on the same topic. But threads die quickly here and I need to stop reading reviews and

make a purchasing decision this week so that I can pick the lens(es) up when I go to the US next week,

so please forgive me.

I have a D300, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I want a general, walk-around zoom

lens. I think I've narrowed it down to one of the following four options:

- Sigma 18-200 f/3.5.-6.3 OS ($440)

- Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR ($660)

- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($430)

- Tamron 17-50 + Nikon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 VR ($690)

My understanding is that I would get better overall quality with the Tamron, at the cost of quite a lot of

mm of focal length, but with the benefit of size and cost compared to the Nikon 18-200. I could get

the Nikon 55-200 VR to complement for telephoto situations, though it's probably not as good and the

overall package ends up being quite expensive. I'm also worried that I would end up just never taking it

with me (or never bothering to change to it).

So far, I've mostly used the 18-55 D40 kit lens. In general, it's served me well, though of course there

are situations where "more zoom" would be nice. I'm not sure how much I'd miss the 5mm at the long

end, or how much better I'd be off with an extra 149mm at the cost of some image quality and

consistency.

I'm also not sure if the Sigma 18-200 is worth the money, though it's quite cheap. I've seen decent

reviews, and although it's a big slower at the long end, image quality is supposed to be pretty good. I

can't find too much mention of it in the forums, though, which makes it hard to judge people's

experiences.

Martin

So... in my reading of the reviews at photozone.de (<a

href="http://photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/242-nikkor-

af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=1">Nikon</a>, <a

href="http://photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/321-sigma-af-18-

200mm-f35-63-dc-os-canon-test-report--review?start=1">Sigma</a>), the Sigma is

actually looking a little bit better on distrotion, about equal on vignetting and CA and equal-

ish on sharpness. Am I looking at the charts wrong? For two-thirds the price, it seems like a

good deal...

Hi Matt,

Thanks so much for that insightful response! You're definitely right that this won't be my

last (or only) lens. I plan to keep the 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 at hand for low-light,

portrait and high-quality pictures.

In any case, I think I'm down to one of three choices:

- Get the Nikon 18-200 VR and return the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $660

- Get the Nikon 18-70 and keep the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $560

- Get the Sigma 18-200 VR and return the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $440

Ah choices. Do any of those stand out as a particularly good or bad idea, anyone?

Cheers,

Martin

This whole discussion is a bit agonizing. :)

The issues of focal length, speed and size/weight are all straightforward. However, I read a

review that says there's Slight Barrel Distortion at 18mm and Visible Pincushion Distortion

at 135mm or whatever... I can see the test images in the reviews and understand what it's

all about, but ... will I actually care?

There seems to be a huge degree of variation in the reviews of these lenses - both in

forums like this and on websites (like KenRockwell.com or ByThom.com) that try to carry

an opinion, ranging from "this lens replaced a bag full of lenses and I use it daily" to

reviews that basically says you need to understand all these types of distortion in detail

and pick your settings carefully to get good results. Yikes!

I am not taking pictures for money, I generally shoot JPG, I keep my pictures in iPhoto and

I print only a few pictures to hang on my wall from time to time. I want a usable lens that

doesn't give me headaches and allows me to take pictures I'll be happy with, and makes

me happy while taking them. I'm sure eventually I'll spend $1500 on some amazing piece

of glass, but that's not what this is all about.

So... for the money, the Sigma 18-200 looks nice. I used one in the shop, and took some

nice pictures, but of course that's nothing but a simple test. If everyone agreed that the

Nikkor 18-200 was way better, I'd have found the spare cash for that. If someone can tell

me that I'll be way happier with an 18-70 and forego a bit of zoom, so be it. I guess the

frustration seems to be that there are more negatives than positives being thrown around.

Ah well, it's all a part of the fun, I guess. :)

Martin

Man, buying lenses is hard. :-) Here's two people saying it's unsharp, one saying it's great,

and Ken Rockwell thinks it's the best lens since sliced bread.

But, bring on the law of averages... more opinions please! ;-)

Hi,

<p>

From my previous question here yesterday, I've come to the conclusion that I really want an 18-200mm

lens to keep on my D300 as a default/all-round/walk-around lens, complementing a 30mm f/1.4

prime (as a "normal" and low-light) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime (as a portrait and/or low-light lens). I

have an unopened Nikon 55-200 VR (intended for a D40 which I'm now selling), which I'm thinking to

return to offset the cost of an 18-200.

</p>

<p>

There seems to be a few choices here. The Nikkor is obviously the most expensive and probably the

best, but I'd like some opinions on whether it's really worth the extra money.

</p>

<ul>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-ED-IF-Zoom-

Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-13">Nikkor

18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR</a> - $650</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NOSCGW/sr=1-1/qid=1201417519/ref=noref?

ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417519&sr=1-1">Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS</a> - $440</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Digital-

Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-2">The same

Sigma, just without OC or the built-in HSM AF motor</a> - $190</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofocus-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-

Nikon/dp/B0007WK8NA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-4">Tamron 18-

200 f/3.5-6.3</a> - $370</li>

</ul>

<p>

As possible alternatives, there's the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-135mm-3-5-5-

6G-Zoom-Nikkor-Digital/dp/B000HJPK0Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?

ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417953&sr=8-1">Nikon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6</a> at $330 or

possibly the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-70mm-3-5-4-5G-AF-S-

Nikkor/dp/B0001YEOCU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417968&sr=8-1">Nikon

18-70 f/3.5-4.5</a> at $300.

</p>

<p>

Now, I know a lot of people swear by Nikkors and wouldn't touch a Sigma or Tamron, but I'm less

puritan (and this is likely not the last lens I ever buy) - I'd like to hear arguments in favour of either. The

18-200 VR Nikkor is really more than I *should* spend, but then so was the D300. I could buy it if it's

really going to make a very noticeable difference.

</p>

<p>

Thanks!

</p>

<p>

Martin

</p>

These lenses are *very* old though. They actually work, but the aperture measurement

thingie (the spring-loaded ring with the little plastic knob) gets confused, because rather

than having a similar bit that points down (and thus pushes the aperture thingie up when I

move the aperture ring on the lens), it has a metal thingie that on the old manual camera

it came from slots around a small metal rod, pointing "up" from the lens. So, it works, but

the camera gets the aperture wrong (the little plastic thing moves, but only by friction and

doesn't always move to the right position).

Okay, that was a crap explanation, but you may get the point.

Martin

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the recommendations. I guess it comes down to price... That said, I will

probably be able to return or sell for near-purchase-price the 55-200 VR, so an 18-200

is not necessarily a bad option. Money allowing, of course.

Are we talking only about the Nikkors here? Any experiences with the Sigma or Tamron

18-200's?

@John - I gather the D300 may be able to make better use of these lenses, so maybe I will

use them. However, they are "non-CPU" lenses so on my D40 the camera wouldn't meter

and I had to guess the shutter speed. That made for a lot of trial-and-error. I haven't

gotten to the part of the D300 manual about non-CPU lenses yet. :)

Martin

Hi all,

In a moment of madness, I upgraded my D40 to a D300. I'm not sure I deserve this body quite yet, but I've

fallen in love and that's it.

Now, mounting the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6G D40 kit lens on the D300 feels quite wrong. I'm also thinking to sell

the D40, and I assume it'll sell better with the kit lens than body-only, given that the likely buyer is a

first-timer (as I was when I bought it).

I do have some other lenses (or rather, they are waiting for me, I haven't picked them up yet): a Sigma

30mm f/1.4, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR. Oh, and I've got two old, 100% manual

(but sharp!) primes: a 35mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. These are fun, but I don't anticipate I'll use them

much since they don't auto-focus and rely on setting the aperture manually.

So, I'm thinking about buying a better "walk-around"/all-round zoom. I wouldn't be adverse to

selling/returning the 55-200 if it comes to that. Given that I blew the budget on the D300, I'd rather start

with something that's good value for money - perhaps a third party lens, or one of the more reasonable

Nikkors. In the shop, I used a Sigma 18-200mm which felt quite good (albeit in a constrained

environment).

Any recommendations?

Martin

If your shutter speed is too short, not enough light will enter the camera, and thus you

don't get enough exposure - it looks black. The P mode is trying to tell you that - it

meters the light available and works out that at your current aperture (the f-number), you

can't get an image with such a high shutter speed.

To rectify the problem, you can either up the ISO (higher ISO means less light is required

to get a picture, at the cost of more grain/noise), increase the aperture (which means the f

numbers get *smaller*, so f/2 gives more chance of an exposure than f/5, say) or increase

the shutter speed. The main reason for a short shutter speed (apart from the risk of over-

exposure when there's too much light) is to avoid camera shake causing blurry pictures.

1/8th of a second is still pretty quick, so unless you have a long lens, you may not notice.

Mounting the camera on a tripod will allow you to use longer shutter speeds as well.

There's one other option, as well. You may have set "exposure compensation" to a low

(negative) number. Try to set it back to 0.

I'd suggest you spend some time in the Learning section of this site (which is very good!),

and with your camera's manual to get a better understanding of how these things fit

together and what options you have.

HTH

Martin

That's a lot of great answers in a very short time! Thank you very much!

@David - I've been going through the learning section (and I have learned a lot). Seeing as

the first thing it recommends is a "normal" prime lens, this seems like a good place to start,

but feel free to tell me I'm wrong. Also - thank you for the list of lenses, that's very useful!

Hi all,

I think I'm going insane from Googling and reading reviews, so I'd appreciate some personal

recommendations.

I have a D40 with the kit 18-55mm. I'm not a great photographer, but I want to learn, and I think it's

fun. I'm learning the jargon and the theory, but excuse me if I say something stupid.

I have decided (I think) to buy the "Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR" to supplement my

18-55mm lens, mainly to get "up close" on remote subjects outdoors, and because it has been

recommended to me. That's not where the trouble is though.

I'd like a prime lens (I think). I'd like a large aperture (I think) because I frequently find myself in low-

light/indoor situations and I don't like (read: suck at) using flash. I think I'd like a "normal" lens, or

something close to it. I also really like the effect of strong, smooth "bokeh" (who the heck came up with

that one?). I've used a manual, 35mm film Minolta SLR with a 50mm normal lens and f/1.7 and I simply

love the bokeh results for portraits and similar. That's what pulled me down this line of inquiry in the

first place.

Now, the things I'm looking at:

- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM

Pros: Large aperture, is "normal" on a DSLR body, will auto-focus on the D40

Cons: Image quality ("it's not Nikon"), auto-focus being poor in low light (from reviews)

- Nikon 50mm f/1.4

Pros: Nikon optics supposedly very good, large aperture, 50mm may mean I don't have to get so close

to my subjects, but what do I know

Cons: Three times the price of the f/1.8 (not a huge issue if it's worth it!), won't auto-focus on the D40

- Nikon 50mm f/1.8

Pros: Very cheap ($100, and I'm earning money in ?), Nikon optics

Cons: Plastic (is this really an issue?), not f/1.4 (will I care?), won't auto-focus on the D40

- Nikon 85mm f/1.8

Pros: Supposedly high quality

Cons: Expensiveish, again won't auto-focus, and I'm not sure if 85mm is too much

I keep adding and removing the first three lenses from my Amazon shopping basket in various

combinations and orders, reading this website (which, by the way, is truly excellent) and others,

searching Flickr for sample images, and generally losing my sleep.

So: I appreciate opinionated, but informed answers!

Martin