[StarScream]

Originally Posted by vasudhir

What's his budget and area of interest in photography. Since this is a DSLR, you need to keep in mind about the cost of lenses going forward. And Nikon lenses are anyday costlier than Canon ones.

Rgds,
Sudhir

Now, that's a sweeping statement methinks.

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by vasudhir

Nikon lenses are anyday costlier than Canon ones.

Hey Sudhir,
That statement doesn't seem right to me.

Sam

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by StarScream

The 18-200VR is a fantastic lens for what it does. Yes, it is not the ultimate in quality but if you were to replicate its range with quality glass you will -
a) spend a lot more
b) carry a lot more weight
c) probably not get VR/IS throughout the range.
The lens is very good at many things and spectacular at none. Comparing it with quality lenses misses the point of what this lens is designed to do - give ultimate range and convenience in a compact, light-weight package.

If convenience is what anyone is after why buy a DSLR at the first place. There are a lot of ultrazooms out there which are cheaper than the cost of the 18-200 lens itself and give you more range + features.
Besides I can replicate even greater range for cheap... a combo of Canon 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS for about 400$ but then that really isnt my thing.

[finneyp]

ET, If I want the performance of a DSLR and travel as light as possible (with minimum lens), I have a option in 18-200 lens.
Yes, the image quality at some range may not be at par with prime lens, but for some that compromise is fine.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by finneyp

ET, If I want the performance of a DSLR and travel as light as possible (with minimum lens), I have a option in 18-200 lens.
Yes, the image quality at some range may not be at par with prime lens, but for some that compromise is fine.

Its the glass up ahead that matters. So DSLR performance == how good is the lens upfront. Believe me you will be more dissapointed having a good body but worse output just because of a cheap lens (in IQ).
As I said, you can replicate even greater range using a combo of the kit lens and the 55-250mm both IS.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

If convenience is what anyone is after why buy a DSLR at the first place. There are a lot of ultrazooms out there which are cheaper than the cost of the 18-200 lens itself and give you more range + features.
Besides I can replicate even greater range for cheap... a combo of Canon 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS for about 400$ but then that really isnt my thing.

Originally Posted by finneyp

ET, If I want the performance of a DSLR and travel as light as possible (with minimum lens), I have a option in 18-200 lens.
Yes, the image quality at some range may not be at par with prime lens, but for some that compromise is fine.

Well, finneyp gets it.

There are a couple of assumptions in your post, extreme. Correct me if Im wrong. One, a Dslr implies that one has to carry a lot of kit or travel heavy. Second, the 18-200VR is a crappy lens quality-wise and equivalent to p&s optics.

I own a Dslr for the flexibility it affords me in terms of picture taking ability and being able to use different lenses for different situations. Within that subset, there are times when I want to carry just one lens. At moments like those the 18-200VR is great lens to have. It is a very good performer which produces sharp, contrasty images. Not as good as Nikon's best but better than their cheapest lenses - to answer you about the two-lens combo with the added advantage of not having to change lenses, which may well make you miss the shot (Also true about the expensive glass).
Incidentally, I wasn't a believer in super-zooms until the advent of digital and the 18-200VR. It's biggest drawback is distortion but in digital that can easily be corrected during post-processing.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by StarScream

There are a couple of assumptions in your post, extreme. Correct me if Im wrong. One, a Dslr implies that one has to carry a lot of kit or travel heavy.

A kit lens and a 70-200 IS wont make much of a difference as far as weight is concerned.

Originally Posted by StarScream

Second, the 18-200VR is a crappy lens quality-wise and equivalent to p&s optics.

No, its not as good and you can get much better quality by spending a little more on a quality glass but yes it wont be as convenient, but that isnt what I am looking for when clicking with a DSLR.
Have a look at this.... zoom creep... Buyer beware! Zoom Creep! - Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR IF-ED Lens - Epinions.com

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

A kit lens and a 70-200 IS wont make much of a difference as far as weight is concerned.

It will. My 80-200/2.8 is 1.5-2 kgs. That lens alone kills you as far as weight is concerned.

No, its not as good and you can get much better quality by spending a little more on a quality glass but yes it wont be as convenient, but that isnt what I am looking for when clicking with a DSLR.

it's not as good as what? Have you used it? And with all my experience in photography I can tell you the guy behind the camera is what matters, not the equipment. A crappy lens (and the 18-200VR is not) can produce fantastic images in the hands of a master.

And so what if it creeps. That doesn't detract from its strengths. I bought it knowing the issue exists. Incidentally, mine doesn't. That was a problem with the early batch.

[finneyp]

StarScream, do you face zoom creep issue on your 18-200VR ?

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by finneyp

StarScream, do you face zoom creep issue on your 18-200VR ?

It does, if you really try i.e. shake it or hang it facing down zoomed out half way. It doesn't if it's at 18mm, even pointing downwards. The early reviewers faced an issue where the zoom mechanism was very loose and would voluntary zoom out from 18 to 200mm when hung facing down. That doesn't happen with mine.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by StarScream

And with all my experience in photography I can tell you the guy behind the camera is what matters, not the equipment. A crappy lens (and the 18-200VR is not) can produce fantastic images in the hands of a master.

"The medium determines the message." I rest my case.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

"The medium determines the message." I rest my case.

Exactly, I agree with you completely. The medium being the photographer, not the equipment.

[gd1418]

My current gear is:

Nikon F801, D80 & Fuji Finepix S602 Zoom
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
Nikon Speed Light SB-24 & SB-400




Thanks Sudhir in advance....

Originally Posted by vasudhir

I have got all my Camera equipment's insured through House Hold Insurance Policy with Oriental Insurance. It is insured against Theft, accidental damage, etc etc.

The 150-500 is a good one. But you got to be lucky to get a good piece as there are lots of complaints on its quality. What equipment do you currently have on which you want to use a TC. I can probably help you to make the right decession.

Rgds,
Sudhir

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by gd1418

My current gear is:

Nikon F801, D80 & Fuji Finepix S602 Zoom
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
Nikon Speed Light SB-24 & SB-400

Thanks Sudhir in advance....

I don't think you can use a TC with any of that stuff gd1418. Those lenses are good as is. With a TC you lose speed and so if you put a 2x TC with the 70-300 you'll get a f12 lens albeit get to 600mm on full frame. How long do you want to go? With the D80 and 70-300 you get to 450mm anyway because of the crop factor.

[Torqy]

You need to check what your effective F-number will be with the TC attached. Beyond F5.6 autofocus will struggle.