New Nikon D40x and a new lens

Paul Rubin wrote:
"David J Taylor"
writes:
Paul, don't be put off by what "Rita" says - try the lenses for
yourself and see if VR makes a difference for you. I know it does
for me at equivalent focal lengths wide than 50mm, but that's not
using a DSLR so my own experience is not strictly comparable.

There is no 50/1.4 VR lens for me to try for myself. We're talking
about hypotheticals.

OK, but I was thinking of the claim that VR doesn't help with
non-telephoto lenses (paraphrased).

David

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Ah, ok. 85/1.4 VR may also be pushing it then. 135/2.0 VR, maybe.
The 200/2.0 VR is fantastic but it's just for specialists really.
I'd actually been keeping an eye out for a 180/2.8 in preference to
an 80-200/2.8 but neither of those have VR.

Paul, don't be put off by what "Rita" says - try the lenses for
yourself and see if VR makes a difference for you. I know it does
for me at equivalent focal lengths wide than 50mm, but that's not
using a DSLR so my own experience is not strictly comparable.

What are you using, Dave?







Rita

Mostly Panasonic FZ5, some Panasonic FZ20, Ricoh R5 Caplio (much less
experience). Shutter sppeds down to the region of 1/10s

David

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I agree on the appeal of VR for low-light work; it's strange they don't
make *any* lenses really good for that.

The 200mm f/2 VR has been pointed out. I overlooked that, it's
certainly in the class. It's a bit long a and a lot expensive for *me*,
but that's a different problem.

Paul Rubin wrote:
"David J Taylor" writes:
Paul, don't be put off by what "Rita" says - try the lenses for yourself
and see if VR makes a difference for you. I know it does for me at
equivalent focal lengths wide than 50mm, but that's not using a DSLR so my
own experience is not strictly comparable.

There is no 50/1.4 VR lens for me to try for myself. We're talking
about hypotheticals.

There isn't that lens, but there *is* a VR lens that has 50mm on it, so
testing whether VR is useful at 50mm is quite possible. Of course,
having found out (let's say) that it is, the lack of an actual 50/1.4 VR
will then become an even bigger frustration :-).

"Ockham's Razor" wrote in message
...
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.

Don't we have enough poor-performing lenses in the world already?

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Mostly Panasonic FZ5, some Panasonic FZ20, Ricoh R5 Caplio (much less
experience). Shutter sppeds down to the region of 1/10s

Basically, they are P&S cameras and are a totally different animal and
behave differently than a dSLR.







Rita

Well, not totally differently, as the principles are the same, but in
practice I use a lower ISO most of the time (ISO 100) and therefore feel
more benefit from the VR even at the wider FoV.

David

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

"Ockham's Razor" wrote in message
...
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.

Don't we have enough poor-performing lenses in the world already?

No doubt, but Nikon apparently thinks they need something to extend the
18-55 kit lens that comes with the D50 and D40. People who are happy
with that lens will be happy with the new one and because they can
change lenses they justify getting a DSLR rather than one of the big
zoom P&S's.

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

In article ,
"David J Taylor"
wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Mostly Panasonic FZ5, some Panasonic FZ20, Ricoh R5 Caplio (much less
experience). Shutter sppeds down to the region of 1/10s

Basically, they are P&S cameras and are a totally different animal and
behave differently than a dSLR.







Rita

Well, not totally differently, as the principles are the same, but in
practice I use a lower ISO most of the time (ISO 100) and therefore feel
more benefit from the VR even at the wider FoV.

Almost everyone I know who moved up to a DSLR did so for one main
reason, lag time between pushing the button and getting the shot. Means
a lot of parents and grand parents are now using DSLR's just to shoot
children or pets. None of them are going after the fillings in the
teeth of the groom.

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

(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.)

Me, I would have gone with the 70-200 first. In all honesty (I can't
believe I'm saying this) the 18-70 really isn't bad for a DX lens,
especially for the price. I wonder why you're having flare problems. I
never noticed this with mine when I used it long ago. In my opinion the
18-70 is far superior to the 18-200VR.

Well, we shall see what we shall see, when I have it in my hands to work
with. I ended up deciding based on the amount of time I spend using my
current 80-200 f/2.8 -- which is very little in the last 5 years. And I
did also consider the 17-35 semi-seriously (I guess I'd have used it in
conjunction with my existing Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro), but I
really think I'd be going wider than 28 and longer than 35 often enough
that that combo would drive me crazy.

I may be seeing some kind of sample problem with my 18-70 flare issue.

Well, on initial Q&D playing, the 17-55mm is not showing up flare
problems for me, even when I try a deliberately fairly nasty situation.
I'll have to haul the 18-70 around at the same time, and shoot a few
things with both, to kinda make clearer what the relative behavior is on
flare.

http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2007/0300x-misc?pic=ddb%2020070307%20010-009

And, elsewhere on the page that photo is from, cute cats! (also with the
17-55). Use the "up" link on the page linked above.

Many of my previous flare problems with the 18-70 were around the same
window Arwen is sleeping in, but of course the conditions are different
every day.

Ockham's Razor wrote:
In article ,
"David J Taylor"
wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Mostly Panasonic FZ5, some Panasonic FZ20, Ricoh R5 Caplio (much
less experience). Shutter sppeds down to the region of 1/10s

Basically, they are P&S cameras and are a totally different animal
and behave differently than a dSLR.







Rita

Well, not totally differently, as the principles are the same, but in
practice I use a lower ISO most of the time (ISO 100) and therefore
feel more benefit from the VR even at the wider FoV.

Almost everyone I know who moved up to a DSLR did so for one main
reason, lag time between pushing the button and getting the shot.
Means a lot of parents and grand parents are now using DSLR's just to
shoot children or pets. None of them are going after the fillings in
the teeth of the groom.

Which has what to do with the benefits of IS/VR on wider-angle lenses?

David