Deadalus

But my point is that "ain't that bad" in this case involves some serious compromises and perhaps to some people, having superior image quality is more important than having a long focal range. A do-it-all lens is only valuable if it works as well as individual good quality lenses - which this 18-200mm VR lens does not.

You can make fun of the "pincushion people" if you want, just wait until the first time someone asks you why that building in your picture looks like it's about to fold in on itself. Fact is, people judge your photographs at face value, they don't take your camera gear into consideration - they don't care why, they just know that trees aren't supposed to have a purple glow about them.

If you seriously think 1 lens will be "it" for your DSLR photography needs, well, enjoy your 18-200mm.

MaxRC

Nickbee

JChristopher

fidge

If I wanted roughly the same range as the 18-200 on top-quality glass, it seems like I would need the $1,419.95 18-55 lens, and the $900 80-200 f/2.8 monstrosity. That's great, but it looks like I'd also need a bunch of sherpas to carry them around. And of course those two lenses alone make the 18-200 VR look cheap, especially since Nikon's taking $300 off the total when you buy a D300 and the VR together, as I plan to.

Seems like maybe there are two types of people: The folks who notice what's in the image, and the folks who notice it has pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration. I suspect I will be taking pictures for the former and not the latter.

I'm more a photojournalist style photographer than a studio pro. I know you need the best glass in the world for the latter, but the handiest glass might trump the best when you're wandering around finding things to shoot spontaneously, which is my personal style.

It seems like the 18-200 should be ideal for me.

Of course if anyone has examples of how awful this lens is, and comparisons of it with "real" lenses, I'd be very interested to see them.

D

DavidDennis

getz76

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 for me, xti body for me

MrBlahBlah

scott johnson

That lens sounds great, by the way.

iTheophilus

But as with all optics, there are indeed tradeoffs with this lens. After reading some reviews of the lens, I now think it is a rather poor choice unless point-and-shoot quality is all you care for. The lens has serious issues with telephoto resolution, chromatic abberation, and severe geometry distortion at all focal lengths. Typically the summaries are of the "not bad for the range" type, but if a large focal range is the only benefit this lens can claim, then we are back to square 1 of being the jack of all trades but master of none.

MaxRC

With regards to Sony, they have made some fine new bodies, but their lens choice continues to be rediculously thin and will not be taken seriously until that situation improves. You can have the best body in the world but people won't buy it if they can't find the lens they want. Canon and Nikon didn't get to where they are by building sub-par cameras, so whether a DSLR is closer to a film camera or a copying machine is a moot point.

MaxRC

I purchased my 40D a few months ago, and went all out with the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. My buddy, who owns an XT, was fretting cause my camera was taking a much sharper picture than his stock setup. He was convinced that he had to go out and get a new body, until I put my lens on his camera. The picture quality was exactly the same once my lens was on his XT.

Yes, it's hard to fathom spending $1000+ on a lens, especially when you shelled out that much on the camera body itself. But, if you market your photography at all, you need to invest in glass.

Lens Rentals.com lets you rent great lenses for a variety of time frames (3 days all the way up to a month at a time). If you want to see just how much difference an L series lens makes, drop $50 for a week rental. As anyone who uses an L series can agree, the first time you see a shot taken with a great lens, you're hooked.

grafxguy

When I converted to digital, I first used my Canon XL1 MiniDV camera as my still camera because it created nicer images than the digital still cameras of the time (which were very primitive).

I next bought a Nikon CoolPix 900, and found it awkward and difficult to take good pictures with, thanks to the poor optical viewfinder and the hard to use manual controls.

When I switched to a Canon EOS D30 digital SLR, I found it a far, far better experience even though I only own one lens, the 28-135 IS. I have never removed that lens from my camera, even once, and yet thanks to the clear, through the lens optical viewfinder and easy to use manual focus and zoom, I've been able to compose great pictures.

I am now planning to replace that camera, probably with a Nikon D300 with their 18-200 VR lens, and I anticipate taking even better pictures with it. Higher usable ISO, faster operation and a much wider zoom range are the main things I'm looking forward to with the new camera. I expect that the 18-200 lens, again, will probably be the only lens I will use with the camera.

I agree with you that I am not getting the ultimate image quality by doing this. But I think that in most cases, if you ever want to use manual focus, have more direct control over your zoom, and want to occasionally use manual exposure, the DSLR is still your best choice even if you see no need to ever change lenses.

I could certainly save a lot of money if I was wrong about this! But my understanding is that even high-end point and shoot cameras lack through the lens viewing and manual focus/zoom rings and as a result the DSLR is the best option for me even though I don't change my lens.

I'm posting this primarily because I think many people might decide you were right and a point and shoot would be better for them without recognizing the advantages of through the lens viewing and good manual controls in picture composition.

Your thoughts?

D

DavidDennis

[lh3.ggpht.com]
I just got my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it's completely changed my life. I was thinking of upgrading my 10D but decided to spend the money on lenses instead and it was completely worth it. The 30's short depth of field and low light powers are superior to any other lens i've ever used and for anyone with a non-full-frame DSLR it's absolutely the way to go (50x1.6 is just not wide enough). I've been shooting in almost exclusively f/1.4 over the past week and have some amazing results.

froboy

dirk1965

Nirtaz

The flexibility that you get from its performance in low light is (for the price, under US$400) pretty useful. Photographing kids indoors without flash or 7-11-blindness-inducing-level lighting is nice. The 30mm x1.6 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm on a full-frame sensor, which is also handy.

There's an interesting comparison of using Nikon & Canon setups over at [www.luminous-landscape.com] .

Cods

Screen Name

I use only "L" lenses for my 5D (few other choices since it's full-frame)

the body is not as important as the lenses you have--an old body can be swapped for a new one with better technology/features, but good lenses remain the core.

As to which camera brand is the best...well, they all have their own charms. I love my manual Nikon, I love my Canon DSLR, and I love my automatic Contax RF. They all take great pictures. And if I'm left with nothing else, my iPhone works well. So what's best is what you have at the moment.

joch

chopstickhero

For this reason, the significant price premium of the D300 - $US1800, versus $US1150 or so for an EOS-40D - really isn't important, unless you already have a bunch of Canon lenses.

If you've got a lens collection already, then just the hassle of selling your old lenses and buying new replacements is unlikely to compensate for the advantages of any new camera body in anything like the same class as your old one. You're not actually likely to lose as much money as you might think, because fools-and-their-money are plentiful in the used-lens market. But you've got to seriously enjoy the whole swap-meet photography scene to make this worthwhile.

If you don't already have a significant number of lenses for one kind of camera, though, then the lens-to-body price ratio means that there really isn't a very meaningful difference between the price of the Nikon and Canon midrange cameras. If you want the best performance right now there's a very good case to be made for the Nikon. And if Canon or Sony have the camera-tech advantage in the future, don't worry about five hundred bucks one way or another; add up the price of the body and a few decent lenses and that won't amount to much of a percentage difference.

The other situation in which the price of the body is important is if you don't actually intend to buy more than one or two lenses for your new DSLR. In which case, you very probably shouldn't actually be buying a DSLR in the first place. Get over your Freudian self, and buy a cheaper, easier-to-carry integrated-lens camera instead. A cheap 35mm film back, an f/1.8 50mm and no other lenses at all is a perfectly defensible photographic option, but a $2000 DSLR plus the kit zoom and an off-brand 30-300mm may be big and bulky and masculine-looking, but is unlikely to give you better results than a point-and-shoot.

Daniel Rutter

I love my 40D very much. I love it even more than my Rebel XT which I still have (and unfortunately ignore). The my 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8L IS both love my 40D more with its better focus engine and improved center point focus. Capturing high speed shots is no problem and the 6.5 fps is not super fast, but fast enough for the average user. The 3" LCD is bright, clear, very useful when you set it to display camera settings (instead of the window on top by the shutter button). The build quality is solid and is one of the best.

Remember, it's the LENS that is more important than anything else. Having good glass (which usually costs more than the body itself) will help resolve detail in those pics. Kit lens is passable, but definitely does not compare to a pro lens. Camera bodies come and go, and will eventually depreciate a lot. Higher end lenses themselves retain 80-90% of its value over time if it is in excellent condition. Can't say that much for my little XT getting dusty in my camera bag.

chopstickhero

I am not saying Nikon > Canon, but different cameras have different features.

getz76

oyumurtaci

I thought the kit lens was an EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens?

[www.amazon.com]

Dataslave

discounteggroll

JoeStalin

@apeguero:
I've got the 30mm f/1.4 on my D300 and LOVE it. the thing is super fast and super quiet, and for under $400 is quite a contributing piece of glass for me (I haven't really used anything else other than that and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. It is bigger and heavier than I thought it was, but that's a good thing, duh!

discounteggroll

Consider that film has almost nothing to do with digital. Film was a chemistry set, digital is a computer with a lens on it. Canon is in a good spot because they made copiers, and Sony for video. A digital slr is more like a photo copier than a film camera.

Also, when it comes to lenses every manufacturer has quality glass and it all costs a lot. So look at what gives you the best features for your dollar, how about useful live view and in camera stabilization for the same price?

40D uses what's called contrast detection to simulate focus, when the mirror comes down it kicks in the real focus sensor, Sony's way always uses the real focus sensor. Live view from Nikon and Canon will also cut your shutter life in half (100k -> 50k) cause each live view shot is two shutter cycles, also runs sensor hot constatly (overheats and shuts off camera), plus you loose a lot of speed and can't use live view in burst mode.

powerball

apeguero

BTW, PhysicsMan is right about LiveView:

Custom Function III; 6 - AF during Live View Shooting : Enable
You can autofocus anytime you want with liveview.
Push the AF-On button and it will drop the mirror and reaquire focus. When it beeps let off the button.

Credit to evoryware who is a reader in PhotoCamel ([photocamel.com])

apeguero

Brian Lam

Thanks all for the corrections and wisdom, keep passing em on.

Brian Lam

smokeonit

PhysicsMan

scingram

or even better fast normal prime like canon's 28mm f1.8 or sigma's 30mm f1.4

burningsensation

I must ask though, how do you feel about the Sony Alpha series?

oyumurtaci

electrikecho

It's worked well in the rain and snow. (Used a Kata cover E-702) I was quite surprised when I saw people out with their cams with no cover and umbrellas are not a solution.

An upcoming trip for three months will see the camera in heat and humidity, so we'll see how it fares.

vagrant