That's a very well-regarded lens: lots of bang for the buck. You might want to compare it against the AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX if you can. If you want aperture, the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED can have great performance, but it's a monster piece of glass, not very wide at the wide end and maybe overpriced. It probably comes into its own on FX sensors rather than DX.

Regarding UV filter, I agree with GG on going for quality, but not for the same reason: glass filters UV anyway. Lenses are made of glass. So they all filter down to around 350nm just fine. You want one that filters down to 400nm. This has a couple of effects: it can remove the blue cast at altitude, but more importantly it cuts through haze because, although cameras are not very sensitive to UV, they're more sensitive than humans with the rough result that they see more haze than the Mark I eyeball does.

Also, don't buy a used polarizer, since they are lifed items.

Jofm5,

Congratulations on going Nikon, don't listen to the Canon types. :ok:

Ref. lenses.

My suggestion would be to look at the fastest lenses your budget allows, this will give you more flexibility in conditions where lighting is, shall we say, less than adequate. This is even more important for you because of your choice of a D100 rather than something more modern such as a D300 where many improvements have been made in sensor technology.

Also, try to stick to "AF-S" types rather than plain "AF", "AF-S" focuses so much faster !

If you can't afford the fast lenses, then the next best are some of the fantastic "VR" ranges, which will help eliminate some of the shake you would otherwise get in low lighting.

The 18-200 is a great consumer lens, and as a general holiday/family event lens, it's more useful than an 18-70, which you might find limiting when you're trying to grab some snapshot moments.

I am assuming you are in the UK, in which case I would suggest you try somewhere like Greys of Westminster. They've got an excellent second hand range that's all in pretty good nick, and if you ask them nicely they might let you try them out for a weekend before commiting to a purchase.

By the way.....

Do I really interpret your post correctly in that you think the 55-200 is pervy ?

That's a tiny lens !

You should see my 70-200 .... I wouldn't go within a mile of a children's playground with that ...... :cool:

So you're saying your 200mm zoom is better than his 200mm zoom. In context, his is a better zoom than yours because it has a zoom range of 3.63:1, whereas yours is only 2.85:1. In absolute terms, you both top out at 200mm so are identical. I'd also wonder about your classification of the 18-200 as a "consumer" lens: the technology is no different to that in any other recent Nikon lens. What would be the "pro" alternative at this point? I guess maybe the 18-200mm VR II, which is actually optically and VR-wise identical apart from the zoom lock at 18mm. Announced July, available September, and I've played with it.

Given the range of advice JOFM has received so far, I'd actually narrow my own suggestions to one item: if JOFM shoots outdoors, buy an expensive circular polarizer without telling anyone, and report back in a month.

I've always found a Neutral Density filter to be handy (reduces brightness without a major impact on colour/saturation)

It got one heck of a write up, and at least one new factory was opened just to accommodate world demand.

I have been waiting for a bargain. It started out at $600 odd, and went to $1,000 in no time. As orders were filled, it came back to the $600s again, but I seldom see anything under $590. 'My' 18 -70 at less than 200 would be a snip. Haven't looked at sterling prices.

It was all Ken Rockwell's fault. He said that he often doesn't bother taking anything but the 18 - 200. The world seems to listen to him.

In some reviews it did but not in all:

Bushfiva,

Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting on PPRuNe, I really do. Why can't people take the time to read a post in context before hitting the "Submit Reply" button ?

Let me put it in plain English as follows :

The point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that he was feeling self-concious about a 55-200. I would not consider 55-200 to be a "pervy lens", and infact, in all honesty I was thinking that if he does consider it to be such a lens, why he bothered to buy a DSLR in the first place if he was worried about the size of the lenses he put on the front.

The reason for bringing up the 70-200 was as a comparison in physical size to demonstrate why I consider the 55-200 to certainly not belong on the "pervy" department.

It was by no means intended to be a willy waving post. The 70-200 is a great lens, there is no doubting that .... but I am not so insecure as to need to come on here and brag about it !

And by the way Bushfiva, I own both the 18-200 and the 70-200.

When you use them side by side, it doesn't take long to tell which one is consumer and which one is pro. And the "top out" at 200 is not strictly true, the 70-200 has a slight edge because of the focusing mechanism.

There are many ways to define "pro" vs "consumer" range, one major point for me is the aperture. You don't get 2.8 throughout on a "consumer" lens, for example. Another major point is consistency, see green granite's post about distortion etc.

Indeed, many amateurs can get by with a relatively slow lens as the shots they are taking are not either speed or depth of field critical.

Professionals need to be able to cover both, if they are taking action shots that require a fast shutter speed in poor light conditions to earn their living that week then they need a fast lens to help them, depth of field is also very important as it can help make the point of interest in the photo stand out from the background. Or in other words they need as much control over and help from their gear as possible.

I appreciate of course there are those who fall in between, who want to take professional quality pictures, but only for pleasure not reward in which case they are going to buy the right gear for the job.

Basically the faster the lens the more you will have to pay for it, but having said that at least with a DSLR you can change the effective ASA speed without having to change the film, which does at least give you a fighting chance of recording the moment despite bad conditions and a slower lens. You'll just have a noisier picture equivalent to the grain increasing if you move to say a 1600ASA film from a 200ASA one.

Cheers all for the comments: -

Mixture, I wanted the D300 but being my first forray into DSLR and having a steep learning curve there is no way I could justify the money.

As for taking the camera to the playground - it was not really what I bought it for but comparing the pics of it with the BenQ makes me want to take the SLR each time - I just feel I get funny looks sometimes being its a tad on the larger side. Putting the playground aside just taking the odd pic of my boy around the house with the 18-200 means I have to be across the other side of the room which is another reason to get a shorter lens.

I actually bought the camera to take to outside events e.g. air shows etc not for what I have been using it for recently - I have been using it alot to play with mainly so when I do go to an event I will be familiar with the camera and its functions.

Loose Rivets:
$600 is way too expensive for the 18-200, I paid £169 out of curry's of all places (a bit of an impulse buy to try the camera body out).

Are you sure it's a Nikon lens and not the Sigma or Tamron version? The cheapest listing I can see is around £540 from UK supplier and around £450 from Hong Kong.

edited to add Curries price is £599.99
Currys - Lenses

Currys - Shop for Cameras - SLR Lenses - Nikon 55-200mm Lens=

This is the one I have tho I just noticed that Loose Rivets was on about the 18-200 so I am talking cross purposes lol.

See - told you I was new to this m'larky

Rather than using a Canon/Nikon own brand lense there is an alternative, Ive owned a Sigma 18-200mm for my EOS400D for 2 years now and am very impressed with the results 18-200 is roughly 28-300mm in 35mm terms and this lense has an image stability function in the form of one of the internal elements activly moves to stabilise the image.

Im very impressed with this one, beats the pant off Canons own lense, highly recomended, has hardly ever been off the camera since i got it.

sigma 18-200mm lens - Jessops

Shop around for the best price and there is also a cheaper version on the market without the image stab bits.

Quite partial to fast glass myself, too.

The Digital Darkroom - Digital photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

Check out this digital photography forum. You will find me there (as a newbie) and a great deal of advice. It has a nikon thread as well as other major brands.

I'm an Oly user.

Barkly

Jofm5,

Guess I should clarify one or two points.

Never said the D100 was a bad choice. Infact I think it's an excellent choice, much better than buying one of the plasticy D40s or something like that.

Honestly, I've never had a bad Nikon. And any of the Dx00 range should be a safe bet. I was perfectly happy with my D200 until the D300 came along, the only reason I'm now a firm D300 supporter is because of what it's sensor can do amongst many other improvements.

However, as you say, it's a learning curve. I've been a digital Nikon user for a long time, and if I were starting again, you wouldn't find me going straight for the D300, I too would opt for something lower down.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression there.



Sounds like I might have to re-read your posts and re-consider my suggestion of an 18-200.... :cool:

Thats a useful looking forum Barkly, thanks for that. :ok:

I'll ban myself for thread drift in a mo but the D40 is actually a very popular and in demand niche body.

It's the last of the hybrid shutter line and thus flash synch goes all the way up to 500th second. The real secret is it synchronises much faster than that if using pro flash heads and a flashmeter. A specialised talent but if it's something you need it's a body you can't do without. Two of them here at the Towers complementing the, so called, serious bodies, Strongly recommended along with fast glass, prime lenses and seriously studying reviews of non nikkor offerings.

Rob

Of course if you want a real lens........................... :hmm: : Used SLR Camera Lenses | B&H Photo Video

And that's a second hand price.

Filters:-

UV filter - can be left in place all the time and will give some protection to the lens against stray fingerprints, dust, etc.

Polarising filter - use it to cut glare, reflections, and turns to help darken the sky at some angles (don't use on wide angle lenses as it looks odd).

Neutral Density Graduated filters - usually square and require a special holder, but very useful for landscape photography as they cut light from the sky so you don't underexpose the ground or overexpose the sky.
Half the filter is clear, and the other half slowly gets darker as you approach the top.

I shot this using an ND grad:-
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/...52dea09c5b.jpg
The sky's well exposed and so is the ground. Without that filter either the sky would be pale and washed out or the ground detail too dark.
I use the Cokin system but there are others.

You can't duplicate a polarising filter in photoshop, or a ND grad (short of using HDR techniques).

Hope this helps.

I'd advise the 18-70mm is the one to go for.. It's fairly cheap and widely available. I bought my D70 with that Kit lens and its very nice; i've had many good and very sharp images using that lens. The only cheaper alternatives would be an 18-55mm or you might find a second-hand 18-135mm. Both of these ar'nt bad either! There is also a newer 18-105mm VR lens which was the D90 kit lens and may be found now. The 18-135mm and the 18-105mm VR have plastic mounts. but the others are metal. (although) not sure about the 18-55mm.

I've now bought the 16-85mm VR; it's very good too, but quite a lot more expensive and mainly lives on my D300 most of the time.

Huh! Something told me to look on Craigspi$$ed this morning. "The 18-200 will be there my psychic voices said. There it was, the very last entry. Spooky.


Anyway, it's two months old and the bloke has got a full frame camera so this one's no good to him. He want's $650 for it.

Since I've seen them at Worst Buy for $699, I'm going to enter into negotiations if he'll play. In the US, prices do not include tax, so 8.25% would have to be added to the retail price in Texas, but not of course to the used price. (saying that, car sales are taxed, used, private or dealer.)

I agree with all of DoP's points except for one. In Photoshop CS4 Camera Raw, it IS possible (indeed it is very easy) to apply a graduated filter effect under software - it is AWESOME!:ok::ok: You can even apply several graduated effects to the one image. I cannot speak highly enough of CS4, and I think I've only scratched the surface of its capabilities.

Haven't checked, but I don't think this feature existed in earlier versions.

But applying the gradation in post-processing can't recover any highlights blown out in the original image, so it's better to do ND graduation at the lens.

I got the lens. Silly question, but I got a filter as part of the deal. He said that he'd paid $40 odd for it, but it simply says Sunpack UltraViolet.
Can one a bit more information by certain trials? Polarized...should be able to work that out with some sun glasses, but assessing the other characteristics...how to do that?


Also, what noises should I expect to hear from this VR lens? Auto focus is noticeably faster than the 18 - 70, but the noises are strange to me.

It reduces UV. To be pedantic, a good brand may reduce UV. In practice, if it's a good brand, it will cut through haze a little (cameras see a little more haze than people do), take away a little blue tinge, and increase contrast. You may or may not observe these effects. It's typically used to protect the front glass, for those who like protecting the glass.

A polarizer is a very different animal, looks very dark, and has a front ring that rotates. It's used for controlling the sky and reflections (see posts passim).

Your filter, if it's the 72mm CF7037UV, retails for $10-$14, it would appear. The DF7037UV is around $16-22. Not to say it's a bad filter, 'cos that's what they all sell for.

Re lens noise, not much at all. I can't listen at the moment because the lens is loaned out.

35mm or 50mm prime. I'd suggest 1.4
12-24mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8

That is all you need most of the time.

Some good info here.

Fair enough Bushfiva - but the graduating effect that can be applied under software is still awesome and can be applied multiple times in multiple places - much as you could apply to a negative in a darkroom I guess. Loss of detail in the highlights doesn't seem to be much of an issue - at least with the D300.

OK, but I think in that context you're probably referring to the digital equivalent of dodging and burning, since you refer to multiple times and places?

Oh dear, I thought I asked a simple question lol

I need to do a hell of alot more reading to understand the above - cheers all for the comments I will try decipher shortly.

Jof

Bushfiva - negative on the dodge & burn issue, though I can understand your confusion. The "Graduated Filter Tool" is indeed a brand new feature in Photoshop CS4 Camera Raw (it lives on the menu up the top of the screen in camera raw and is easy to miss unless you know about it).

In addition to exposure, you can also adjust brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity, sharpness and colour which are then blended into the image in much the same fashion as you'd get if you applied a graduated filter either on the lens or in the darkroom in the traditional film analogy.

More here Five Adobe CS4 Goodies for Photographers .

Apologies for the thread drift Jof, but stick with it and enjoy!

Carry on - all interesting stuff :ok:

Perhaps Saab could rename this thread (with Jofm5's permission of course) to something like photo matters

I am learning from it so dont object at all.

Done - I've gone for Digital Photography Thread to maintain the link with C&I ;)

SD

Excellent title Saab :ok:

A useful technique, and because of it I settled for a slightly longer bottom ended zoom lens (28-135mm), is photo stitching, (google it for free software) Just shoot 2 overlapping pictures and then stitch them together, ok you get an elongated aspect ratio but that doesn't IMHO matter very much. For example these 2 were merged using photoshop. Not perfect but with more care taking the originals would have been better

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1...d/71dc33bf.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1...d/4ca0738f.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1...d/b1bf7064.jpg

It's a nice effect / technique, and you can have some fun by having someone pose in different places in each photo, so they appear twice (or more)!

SD

Don't get me started on Rockwell. Since he negatively "reviewed" the camera I have (Pentax *ist DS) while happily admitting he had never even see one, he's been on the "no-fly" lists of many Pentax owners. He's also one of those who thinks your only camera choices are between Canon and Nikon = another reason to ignore him. :mad:

ps: if you have $38,000 spare, you might like one of these lenses:
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleim...ieve5/lens.jpg

(Sigma APO 200-500mm f2.8 EX DG) :8

I'd have to hire the bloke to carry it for me.:(

Re : effects in Paint Shop Pro / Adobe Photoshop etc ....

For anyone that doesn't have decent graphics editing software, I can recommend "Photo Pos Pro",
which is FREEWARE, and IMHO rivals earlier versions of Paint Shop Pro :
Free Photo Editor, Free Image Editor, Photo Editing Software, Image Editing Software and Free Photo Tools

( Although Paint Shop Pro Photo x2 Ultimate is awesome ! )

BTW - What happened to the "stickiness" of the Ultimate List of Freeware thread ?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1.../Coconutty.jpg