Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, While the D200 is indeed a very good camera, the lenses, even kit lenses are notexactly small and light weight, unless you buy the low end lenses, which build quality is not even close to the better lenses. I know as I have the 18~200 kit zoom lens, which is indeed a good lens, optics wise, but very slow at 3.5 to 5.6 (its at 5.6 by 50mm, not good) and not small and light by any streach of the imagination. My old 180/2.8 Nikkor is smaller, and a galaxy ahead of the kit zoom in construction quality. I guess if you can live with the cheaper lenses then more power to you, I should have purchased the x80~200/2.8 or the 70~200/2.8 for the extra speed and better construction, as the kit lens is just too slow for my purposes and the zoom creep is very frustrating. I have found I end up using my R8 and the R optics more than the D200 and its kit lens, or even my 2 older Nikkor MF optics. The R8 and R lenses are far superior in my opinion. Gene -------------- Original message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>: -------------- > On 3/12/07 11:02 PM, "Don Dory" typed: > > > Coming in late to this discussion there are several points to make. > > First, both lenses were stopped down to F11 at which point diffraction > > should be leveling the playing field so differences are due to the on > > camera > > imaging chain. > > Second, in camera sharpening or lack can have an effect. Both images > > where > > sharpened alike in LR so there is an optimization opportunity. > > Third, while trekking in Death Valley last week my bag with a body and > > six > > lenses was considerably smaller, lighter, faster optics, and less > > unwieldy > > than my companions carrying a simple two lens SLR outfit 17-40/70-200 or > > equivalent. Plus, IR was but a filter away. > > Fourth, rangefinders float my boat and make me happy. > > > > > > > I'm with you but there are DSLRs and there are DSLRs. > These two lens you mention could be monsters 17-40/70-200 > Like many feel they have to have to do serious photography. > 2.8's Yuban coffee cans. > Or they can be very compact lightweight cheap with maybe not such a great > build but featherweight and with very good imaging quality. > Those are the lenses I prefer when I do DSLR work. Often consumer "kit" > lenses. > And those lenses are only slightly bigger than Leica m glass and I think > not > as heavy. The BUILD you just don't want to talk about. > > But its apple and oranges rangefinder vs. SLR work. > > Still mirror bounce aside the right choice of SLR and you have something > which has some real class. A real contender for elegant usage. And the > optics wont embarrass you. > A D40+ looks real good to me right now. > > And never in my life have I ever shot with such an image making enabling > machine as I have with my Nikon D200. The 12-24 lens amazing. > Kyle will concur. > Pete will pontificate. > Marvin will Marvel. > > > I have often a two lens kit. > An 18-55 whatever it is kit lens. And a > 55-200. Tiny light cheap. > And gets into those hard to reach places. > In effect you've got everything covered from > 28mm to 300mm for just a few small ounces. And very few bucks. > > If I bring my 12-24 along that's still half the size of the 2.8's its a 4. > > But my lenses I've mentioned above are a quarter the size of the 2.8 I > think. And weight. > > There are not ultrawide zoom compacts out that I know of. > > > Mark Rabiner > 8A/109s > New York, NY > > markrabiner.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information