18-200 test

sabbath999 · Jan 18, 2008

JIP said:
Before I shattered my leg in about 6 pieces 2 years ago (an issue I am still dealing with) I did hike qnd backpack quite exyensively. I would go on multi night trips albeit not as exotic as the one you named and every one of them I carried my Nikon N70 with whatever lens I had and I also would carry my Bronica ETRsi with a tripod to carry it and never suffered for it good images were just important to me and I did not care about the extra weight.

With all due respect, I think your origional statement is one that I think most folks just can't agree with.

Sorry to hear about your leg though, that is REALLY a tough injury. 6 pieces? Holy Cow that is bad. Hopefully you can get a full recovery out of it.

I completely tore my patellar tendon in 2000, and it took 3 years to fully recover... and it never got back to where it was. That puppy barks at me to this day, and makes going downhill a real bear. That broken bone you have sound hideous. Best wishes on it.

JIP · Jan 18, 2008

sabbath999 said:
With all due respect, I think your origional statement is one that I think most folks just can't agree with.

Sorry to hear about your leg though, that is REALLY a tough injury. 6 pieces? Holy Cow that is bad. Hopefully you can get a full recovery out of it.

I don't know does this count as 6 pieces....

Now lets get back to the arguing.....

sabbath999 · Jan 18, 2008

JIP said:
I don't know does this count as 6 pieces....

That looks very ungood.

Garbz · Jan 18, 2008

Val said:
They image "test" was just to demonstrate that drawbacks arnt quite what people on this forum GUESS them to be

Bah we're talking in circles. I'm back to saying the 50mm has the same disadvantages but don't mind me >_<

Silverbackmp · Jan 18, 2008

I have the 18-200mm and it does make a good "walk around" lens for a DSLR. But then I'm wondering--why not just get a cannon G9 for walk around use? Not quite as much zoom but 5x is plenty for this purpose and would probably take much better landscapes (considering it's f/stop range is in reality probably in the f11-32 area after you figure lens to sensor distance). Landscapes could be done with a tabletop tripod that weighs in the ounces. Also it would be decent for candids and snapshots. And it can fit in a cargo pocket.

That would reserve the DSLR and accompanying lenses for the "serious, I'm going out to take some high quality photos with the best lens I can afford" duty.

I don't know the answers to this but as a somewhat noob these are the questions that I'm asking myself.

JIP · Jan 19, 2008

Silverbackmp said:
I have the 18-200mm and it does make a good "walk around" lens for a DSLR. But then I'm wondering--why not just get a cannon G9 for walk around use? Not quite as much zoom but 5x is plenty for this purpose and would probably take much better landscapes (considering it's f/stop range is in reality probably in the f11-32 area after you figure lens to sensor distance). Landscapes could be done with a tabletop tripod that weighs in the ounces. Also it would be decent for candids and snapshots. And it can fit in a cargo pocket.

That would reserve the DSLR and accompanying lenses for the "serious, I'm going out to take some high quality photos with the best lens I can afford" duty.

I don't know the answers to this but as a somewhat noob these are the questions that I'm asking myself.

That's what I try and tell people and for less than the price you pay for the 18-200 you can get the G9 and an underwater housing. I say if you want portability go for it.

Val · Jan 19, 2008

People usually consider 4x5 cameras good for landscapes, definitely not Pos

JIP · Jan 19, 2008

Val said:
People usually consider 4x5 cameras good for landscapes, definitely not Pos

HUH??

The_Traveler · Jan 19, 2008

Val said:
People usually consider 4x5 cameras good for landscapes, definitely not Pos

Oops, wrong.

Val · Jan 19, 2008

Why? Most people i know value detail in landscape and ability to make large prints. Surely antipode for a PoS?

NateS · Jan 19, 2008

Val said:
Agreed, you do have to stop it down a little (but that applies almost to all lenses, i havent tried 80-200 but corners are sharp at 200/2.8?).

My point about 18-200 is that its a great lens not because of quality, but because of excellent versatility with acceptable drawbacks.

If i go on a trip somewhere i will bring 18-200 simply because i will miss half interesting shots otherwise. Surely 80-200 is significantly better, but what if something happens near you? By the time you change lenses (not to mention you have to carry a bag with you) the moment is already gone. Happens a lot to me

You people are already saying that convenience is more important to you than quality, so why would you even question the quality of a Point and shoot. P&S cameras can take really great pictures. If you are that worried about it's quality you wouldn't have the 18-200 either. This sounds very hypocritical to question the quality of a convenient P&S while defending the 18-200 in the manner you do.

So, let's say you have the 18-55VR/55-200VR combo with the 55-200VR on your body and something happens close to you and you can't afford to miss..... What do you do??? You take a step back and click the picture at 55mm. Or considering the $400 you saved by opting out of the 18-200VR you could get a second D40 body for lightweight use with the 18-55vr and have better quality pictures with 2 bodies and 2 lenses. This way you don't have to miss a shot, just grab the other body with lens already mounted.......

or......if you want one body and one lens then get one of the many incredible P&S cameras on the market. It sounds like Val is trying pretty hard to justify/defend her overpriced purchase. There you go, now you can bash on me since I do.n't agree with you

Helen B · Jan 20, 2008

Val said:
Why? Most people i know value detail in landscape and ability to make large prints. Surely antipode for a PoS?

I'm not getting your meaning in this 4x5/PoS comparison. What is a PoS? Piece of sh...t?

Thanks,
Helen

dipstick · Jan 20, 2008

Val said:
People usually consider 4x5 cameras good for landscapes, definitely not Pos

Did anyone say that 4x5 is not good for landscapes?

This thread is really turning in to a comparison between apples and oranges...

Silverbackmp · Jan 20, 2008

Val said:
People usually consider 4x5 cameras good for landscapes, definitely not Pos

Val---the person using a 4x5 would also pack the best glass for use with a DSLR if that were his/her main camera. My point is that a quality compact (such as the G9) can perhaps take as almost as good or better (landscapes) photographs as the 18-200mm and be significantly smaller and lighter. Apples to oranges.

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

Val · Jan 20, 2008

Eh, i think you guys are bending the stick a little too far with 18-200 and PandS/55-200 comparison.

I dont think many of you will distinguish photos taken with 18-200 and 55-200. I tried them both, i couldnt.

As for P&S. Yes it offers even better convenience. This is nothing to do with being hypercritical though. Everyone has to find the right balance. For me extra $400 more then pays for almost P&S convenience with proper DSLR quality and flexibility :thumbup: