Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    A. P. (bigdad)      Join Date: Apr 2002       11-15-2006, 7:12 PM Reply   
No one has this lens, just wondering how long people are waiting to get this lens.

If this lens is available sometime before the end of the year I will buy it along with a D80 but if it isn't expected in anytime soon I may jump to a Canon 30D before the rebates expire
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-15-2006, 7:17 PM Reply   

Take a look here.
Old    Mikeski (mikeski)      Join Date: Aug 2003       11-15-2006, 10:32 PM Reply   
I ordered from three different places, waiting list. Amazon came through first after about two months, I have had it for about 6 months now.
Old    A. P. (bigdad)      Join Date: Apr 2002       11-15-2006, 11:06 PM Reply   
walt- BH is backordered also. With no ETA

Mikeski - How do you like it? Worth buying?
Old    Mikeski (mikeski)      Join Date: Aug 2003       11-16-2006, 2:50 PM Reply   
Great lens. Some critics will say it has too much distortion/noise but I don't notice. Being able give it a twist and capture a wide angle shot of what's happening in the boat then twist the other direction to zoom in on the rider is awesome. Dealing with two lenses is a bummer. I think the VR helps too but I am still learning how to use it correctly. A buddy I work with has the D200 and 18-200VR too. Like me he has not changed the lens since it's been on the camera. He even has some really nice other lenses so this is a big statement on behalf of the 18-200.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       11-16-2006, 5:23 PM Reply   
Just to clarify your statement above, a lens is not capable of producing noise, that's strictly caused by sensor gain and is independent of the glass being used. However there is a cause and effect with a slower lens like the 18-200 as one is sometimes forced to use a higher ISO (gain) setting for low light shots.

Even though the 18-200 may be the best superzoom in that range currently out, it is what it is and all zooms are a compromise. The IQ from shots I have seen is very good but not up to the Canon 70-200 L's or the Nikon 70-200 either. I would question choosing a Nikon body based strictly on being able to use that lens, but that's just MHO. As much as we'd all love to see a single lens that can do everything the more you shoot the more you'll realize that's just not how it works.
Old    Mikeski (mikeski)      Join Date: Aug 2003       11-17-2006, 2:05 PM Reply   
Great, now we are all clear. The 18-200VR is a great lens for most of us all of the time.

Rich, Have you ever used this lens?

Before buying the lens I found a ton of online "tech spec critics" from the professional photography sector saying negative things about the lens. Nearly every one of them had never even seen the lens. Am I incorrect to put you in this category too?

I don't really care if this lens is good for the professional photographer. As a general consumer that usually leaves my camera in full auto or sports program mode the thing works perfect for my needs. It is not uncommon for me to leave the unzipped camera bag at my feet when I am driving. After the cruise engauges I grab it start firing shots in the general direction of the rider. Every now and then I actually get a good shot. Alternatively I just pass the camera to whoever is in the passenger seat, show them the zoom ring, and ask them to start shooting.

(Message edited by mikeski on November 17, 2006)

(Message edited by mikeski on November 17, 2006)
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       11-17-2006, 6:21 PM Reply   
I tested it on a D200 at Keeple and Shucat when they first came out. Took about a 100 inside and outside shots and compared them to my 5D / 24-105L.

It's a very good lens and worth every bit of the $700-800 (or whatever they sell for now) pricetag. But it's not as good as the 24-105L and it's not really in the same league as the lesser range L zooms like the 70-200's or any prime lens (and face it physics just don't allow it to be).

I'd ask the same question to you, how many other more expensive Nikon zooms/primes have you owned or been able to compare it to?

As far as the Pro's go there are many who won't use a zoom lens over a prime period so that doesn't surprise me!

What I'm really surprised is that Canon hasn't come up with something competative in an EF-s mount because it's obviously helping Nikon sell lots of bodies.
Old    Mikeski (mikeski)      Join Date: Aug 2003       11-17-2006, 7:08 PM Reply   
Since the original post specifically asked about the 18-200 and I own one I though my input would be appreciated. I don't have any prime lenses. Looked at the big 2.8 70-200 but I don't really have a need for it. My co-worker has both the big 70-200 and the 18-200 for use on his d200. He confesses that he rarely uses the expensive 70-200 because it's big and inconvenient. There are actually four of us in the engineering office with Nikon's. Two of us have D80's and two of us have D200's. I would still have my D50 but I needed to upgrade to keep up with the Jonses, LOL.

On my other camera threads I always recommend people look into the Canon's before buying the Nikon's. They sell way more Canon's than Nikon's and the Canon's are always rated higher. I have been using a Nikon since high school and there is just something about the feel of the Nikon that I like. Before buying my D50 I used a friends Canon 20D for an entire day and still didn't really feel comfortable with it. I bought the 18-200VR to replace the 18-70 and 70-210 (old school autofocus 1990 vintage). I kept the 70-210 for a while since Ken Rockwell said it takes better pictures. After it sat collecting dust for 6 months I finally decided to sell it to help offset the upgrade cost for the D80.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       11-17-2006, 7:31 PM Reply   
I'm sorry I know I sound argumentative and I'm not trying to rain on your 18-200. Besides the lens you use a lot has better IQ then the best prime ever made if it's always sitting in your bag unused.

The best Canon lens I've owned to date is a 300 f2.8 L IS which has pretty much been called the best 300mm telephoto ever made at any price. As much as I loved staring at the images it produced it was really not a lens I had any real use for. It was designed primarily for shooting low light sports, mostly baseball/football. So after lugging it around for a few months I sold it because I just couldn't justify owning a lens that expensive with very little need to shoot with it. The 100-400 Canon L I replaced it with was nowhere near as nice but at least it had realistic uses.

If you replaced both those lenses with the 18-200 and didn't give anything up in your mind then you made the right choice.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:23 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us