[Leica] widest lens used?

[robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)]

Mark,

I've got the VR version of the 55-200 and I have gotten truely  
wonderful results from it on my D40x that I couldn't have gotten with  
anything else.  The VR allows me to shoot it at 1/30 and get pictures  
that look like I used a tripod.

I agree with you about the advantages of the half-frame format.   I'd  
like to get the 10-24 DX lens to go with the 18-55 that I have in VR  
form.   I also use the 50/1.4G lens with the D40X to throw the  
background out of focus with portraits and still lifes.   It is an  
excellent lens.

Robert

On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

>> Jesus, Mark, you find that lens useable?
>> S.d.
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>>> And 149 with the compact 55-200
>>
>>
> A 80 to 300 full frame lens for full frame is a bit of a monster to  
> shoot
> with. I have one.
> But The 55-200 f4-5.6 G ED AF-S DX Nikor  is that lens at a forth  
> of the
> size and weight and price even. Its one of the few advantages to a  
> cropped
> format you get to use some real compact gear and even pay less  
> money. You'd
> think you were shooting with a half fame system. Then you find out  
> you are.
> If I had the current VR anti vibration version of that lens I'd be  
> using it
> ten times more. Its only a bit bigger  and heavier.
> I obviously  do find it useable as I just said so.
> And while typing it had the images right in front of me on my  
> screen in
> Bridge.
> The specs of this very inexpensive lenes also speak for themselves.
> They are very competitive from a results angle.
> While heavy fast expensive glass is normally considered professional
> Lightweight compact slower and cheaper glass from Nikon often has  
> as good or
> not better specs. Contrast and resolution.  And on a number of  
> levels I find
> compact glass more useable.  Hence my interest in Leica.
>
> I hear when you shoot Canon you have to stick with the 2.8's the  
> cheaper
> stuff does not have the specs.
> But shooting a nikon system we do have that option.
> It looks bad. People expect to see a 2.8 Yuban coffee can on your  
> camera.
> But to have what looks like a 50mm normal lens on your camera but  
> be able to
> get 3oomm reach is very thrilling and useful to me for the 55  
> months I've
> been using this lens which I got for 150 bucks new the week it came  
> out.
> I had the sigma lens before that but it had apparitions on the white
> backdrop. Large eerie ghosts. In the field though you never saw  
> them but
> back then I was half the time in the studio.
>
> As I go back to the 60's to me a zoom lens is an 80 - 200.
> This 55-200 is that lens only for DX as close as I can get to the  
> classic 80
> - 200 angles I am used to
> And I used it on the white backdrop with studio strobes hand  
> holding it for
> shoots lasting several hours.
>
> http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm
> Thom is farily high on it Ken I doubt uses it at all but briefly  
> checked it
> out.
> I never had much problem with how slow it focuses.
> Especially shooting trees. Even blowing in the wind.
>
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information