New Nikon D40x and a new lens

Hi,

Nikon has announced the D40x:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=917
and a new 55-200 VR lens:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...

and a new 55-200 VR lens:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918


A bit slow isn't it?

In article ,
"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...

and a new 55-200 VR lens:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=918


A bit slow isn't it?

For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it
to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price.

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding
beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00.



Check your bank roll and make your decision.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Ockham's Razor writes:
For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it
to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price.

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding
beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00.

I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Paul Rubin wrote:

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR
riding beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at
about 3000.00.

I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR
unless you want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I
like my 70-200 just the way it is.

I would like to see a lighter version.

--
-Mike

Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com writes:
I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

Really, what's the point? We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless you
want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200 just
the way it is.

Not sure what you mean about the 18-200 VR. The 70-200 is a big
expensive lens. I'm wondering if they can make one that's smaller and
more affordable that's equally fast, for the DX format. This new
55-200 is a low cost VR tele that's too slow to be interesting, but
that they chose DX format for it indicates there were some savings
from doing so. Even a 70-200/4 VR would be of some interest.

I missed out on a chance to get a 300/2.8 ED MF for a very low price
but I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld
indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding
beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about
3000.00.

I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

Really, what's the point?

Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would*
save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was
always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX --
and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the 70-200
on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though).

(I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week,
and decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens
which is slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old
Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be
faster and VR would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next*
quarter I can consider the 70-200 VR as well.)

We really don't need another 18-200 VR unless
you
want to have dual bellows for stocking the fireplace. I like my 70-200
just
the way it is.

The 18-200 is no doubt an okay lens for outdoor scenic snapshots. It's
*far* too slow for any kind of available light work, though; two stops
slower where it matters (the long end, where you need higher shutter
speeds to avoid camera shake problems). Remember, they're *both* VR.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
. net...
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding
beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about
3000.00.

I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

Really, what's the point?

Um, the point is to save money? I'm not too confident that it *would*
save money, getting adequate coverage in longer-than-normal lenses was
always pretty easy. I'd be more interested in the f/2 version for DX --
and say, Olympus has just that for the 4/3 (FOV equivalent to the 70-200
on 35mm, at f/2; even more expensive though).

(I was deciding between getting the 17-55 and the 70-200 VR last week, and
decided to get the 17-55 for now, to replace the 18-70 kit lens which is
slow and I'm having flare problems with. I'm using an old Tokina 80-200
f/2.8, no VR, that's very nice though the focus could be faster and VR
would be nice. Well, maybe if we get a good bonus *next* quarter I can
consider the 70-200 VR as well.)


But wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 VR lens, even if optimized for digital sensors,
be just as big, heavy and expensive as a full frame version? Not to mention
an f2 version. I'm not sure what could be short cutted to get it smaller and
cheaper.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:

Ockham's Razor writes:
For about 250.00 and VR it is as good as you can get. Hell, compare it
to the 18-200 VR and 3 times the price.

If you have unlimited funds, there is always the 70-200 2.8 VR riding
beyond a 17-55 2.8. Of course that combo will come in at about 3000.00.

I'd like to know if they can make a 70-200/2.8 VR DX for a lot less
bucks than the full frame version.

The market for those two lenses is entirely different.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:

I figure a 70-200/2.8 VR is probably superior to it for handheld
indoor shooting, using a 1.4x if necessary.

Add to that the 17-55 2.8 and you have the ultimate Nikon lens combo.
About 3700.00 for the set. But, I would use the 2.0x. And, you can
add the 1.4 50 for about 200.00 for low light interiors at parties.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis