Optical Zoom

My 2 cents:
You will get equal or better performance and far more usability out of a
Sigma or Tamron 18-200 or the Tamron 18-250.
Having used or tried all of these lenses I would recommend the Sigma or
Tamrons over the Nikons.
The 18-55 Nikon is no better than the two longer zooms in that focal range
and may have more chromatic aberration at the long end. Its an ok lens but
not on a par with the Nikon 18-70.
The original Nikon 55-200 is just about the worst lens I have ever seen.
Supposedly the newer VR version is a different formulation. I sure hope so.
I believe the OS version of the Sigma is now available and would be the most
cost effective solution in this price/performance range.
The Nikon 18-200VR is insanely overpriced for its level of optical
performance (on a par with the Sigma and Tamron) but has VR which is very
valuable.
If you don't already have a Nikon dSLR consider getting a Pentax K10d, which
has OS built into the camera, and the non-OS Sigma or Tamron.
I would.
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

Denis wrote:
> Would the following two lens be a good buy with a camera
> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED)
>
> what equavalent optical zoom are they

Well, 18-55mm and 55-200mm )
What was your real question?

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:17:50 GMT, "Jürgen Exner"
<jurgenex DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Denis wrote:
>> Would the following two lens be a good buy with a camera
>> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
>> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED)
>>
>> what equavalent optical zoom are they
>
>Well, 18-55mm and 55-200mm )
>What was your real question?

Tut-tut. Don't be so unkind

Denis, when P&S makers say something like "10x zoom" they
mean the longest focal length is 10 times greater than the
shortest, as in 35-350mm or 18-180mm say.

So in the case of the pair of lenses you quote they would
cover 18-200mm between them, which in digicam-speak would be
about 11.1X.

You can work out the numbers for any lens you like now

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

John Bean wrote:
> Denis, when P&S makers say something like "10x zoom" they
> mean the longest focal length is 10 times greater than the
> shortest, as in 35-350mm or 18-180mm say.
>
> So in the case of the pair of lenses you quote they would
> cover 18-200mm between them, which in digicam-speak would be
> about 11.1X.
>
> You can work out the numbers for any lens you like now

So are prime lenses 1x or 0x?
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:44:20 -0400, Cynicor
<j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> Denis, when P&S makers say something like "10x zoom" they
>> mean the longest focal length is 10 times greater than the
>> shortest, as in 35-350mm or 18-180mm say.
>>
>> So in the case of the pair of lenses you quote they would
>> cover 18-200mm between them, which in digicam-speak would be
>> about 11.1X.
>>
>> You can work out the numbers for any lens you like now
>
>So are prime lenses 1x or 0x?

Since they're not zoom the "(something)x zoom" notation is
inappropriate anyway, so who cares?

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

In article <q5odgsiqik.fsf.TakeThisOut@honbori.ifi.uio.no>, Gisle Hannemyr says...
> Denis <denisphelan.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Would the following two lens be a good buy with a camera
> > AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
> > AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED)
>
> Nope. They are slow and both are far below par optically.

How about the Nikon 17-55? It costs around 1300 Euro here in Germany.

I've seen some photos taken with this lens by a Nikon D200 and I'm not
impressed.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

Denis wrote:
> Would the following two lens be a good buy with a camera
> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED)
>
> what equavalent optical zoom are they

You would be better to get the VR version of the 55 - 200mm, it will help
take sharper telephoto pictures.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

In article <q5ir70faun.fsf.TakeThisOut@sviurr.ifi.uio.no>, Gisle Hannemyr says...

> Well, I don't know what you've seen and what it takes to get you
> impressed, but the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED AF-S DX is lens
> in a different class that the "kit" zoom the OP refer to (as it
> should be - it is, as you note, a tad on the expensive side).
>
> But at constant aperture f/2.8 it is fast (two stops at the tele
> end compared to the "kit" soom), very sharp in the range f/2.8-8.0,
> and very well built.
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/129/cat/13

It was a photo taken at 17mm, F7.1, a mountain scene. Only the centre
was sharp, the remaining part unsharp ("mush"). I doubt it's a lack of
DOF, it rather looks like this lens is only sharp in the centre when you
are at the wide end of the zoom.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Optical Zoom