zaheer_b

<p>as many have pointed out, there are many non-rational factors that influence our likes/dislikes. and surely a camera body is not simply a tool for taking pictures, even though no doubt that is what it is most used for! tactile preferences, design, finish, layout, ease of use etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>very nice images! what can i say; not doubt it does not take super-expensive equipment to take super nice images. excellent! a lesson for those (like me) who are sometimew obssessed with getting the "latest" but not honing their skills. amazing images, taken by FG that is supposed to be a camera of the yester-years...</p>

<p>Dave, this lens will save your friend the pain of having to change lenses. Yes it is more expensive than the two she has put together, and it's nowhere in the running when it comes to muscle-busting and pocket-busting professional lenses that serv their purpose for those who make millions (or dream of it) from their images. However, in the real world, for folks who want reasonably good images, you may want to look at what a professional who does make a lot of money through photography, has to say about it.<br>

Thom Hogan's views on this lens:<br>

<em>For US$750, Nikon DSLR users get a do-it-all lens. Everyone wants to know if it's worth the money. Short answer: it is...</em><br>

 

<h4 ><a name="autofocus"></a><em>Performance</em></h4>

<p ><em>I alluded to it earlier, so let's cut to the chase: on almost every performance parameter this is an excellent lens. Not perfect, but quite good at almost everything. </em><br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm"><em>http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm</em></a></p>

 

 

<p><em> </em></p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>going beyond the specific question posed by dave, the 18-200 really is a "unicorn" - an impossibility just a few years ago.<br>

there is a real danger of talking at cross-purposes here, so:<br>

1. if one is making money through photography, the 18-200 lens is obviously not the way to go.<br>

2. if one wants to actually enjoy photography and get reasonably good pictures that can be shared with friends, on online sites etc. quite obviously, this is the lens. given the high ISO capabilities of the D300 and D700, the not so good aperture issue is taken care of...for those who just want to experience the joy of capturing the moment and sharing it.<br>

3. if one's hobby is driven primarily by incurable angst over MTF charts, pixelanxiety etc. then it would seem that no lens or camera body would ever be good enough.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>The query is a very specific one. It is this:<br>

"The body came with both a Nikkor 18-55 f/3.5–5.6G lens and a Nikkor 55-200 f/4.5-5.6G lens. She really enjoys the camera, but often has trouble deciding which lens to use when we stroll around shooting, so I’m considering replacing both of those lenses with a Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G. The convenience would be great, but how about the image quality? Would it be better or worse or the same?"<br>

ie. would the 18-200 be better, worse or the same as the other two lenses Dave's girlfriend already has.<br>

I truly believe that the only response to the question, based on my experience at least, is a big YES.<br>

Nobody doubts that there are many lenses that are better than the 18-200 etc. etc. But the 18-200 cannot possibly be any worse than the 18-55 and 55-200 listed above.</p>