Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jayanand, I looked at the 18 -70, but did not like it as much as the 18-200. Yes, both are very good, but also very slow, and since alot of my work lately has been inside and action, it just does not meet my needs. But as a general all around lens it is great. The 18-200 is heavy and the zoom creep is not one of its best features. The bayonet on plastic lenshood comes off easier than it goes on, as I am constantly knocking it off. I also feel the build quality is not up to my previous Nikkor lenses, all MF lenses. As I said, I should have went with the 80-200/2.8 as it would have been a better choice for my needs. If I could find a used DM-R in the $3000 range I think I would get it and sell the D200 as I hardly use it. Although that I think will have to wait with my getting the M8 this past month. ;-) Gene -------------- Original message from "Jayanand Govindaraj" <jayanand@gmail.com>: -------------- > Gene, > The 18-70 kit lens that I got with my D70 is light, and a superb > performer. > Cheers > Jayanand > > On 3/14/07, grduprey@mchsi.com wrote: > > > > 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 : > > -------------- > > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information