| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2006 10:20:13 PM · #1 |
Got the lens today. Couldn't wait to shoot.
This is a shot of a "pond" between the Mississippi River and the levee.
And here is one of the birdbath in my backyard. Levels and curves were the only adjustment for the birdbath. Note the fence reflecting in the water.
Both are pretty normal shots. First is 20mm and the second shot is about 70mm.
The lens is performed as advertised. Maybe a little soft on very close up shots (less than 2 feet) but really haven't had a chance to really test it.
Comments?
Kenskid |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 10:24:22 PM · #2 |
| i wish i can have that lens! |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 10:27:06 PM · #3 |
Save up for it. Prices aren't likely to come down anytime soon. It is worth every penny I spent on it...(so far). I really only shot about 20 frames. But I can tell you that the pics are nice and the lens operation is smoooth....
KS
Originally posted by arsenal:
i wish i can have that lens! |
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 11:43:29 PM · #4 |
| Well, looks good so far. I've been looking forward to hearing how well this lens performs. I'm curious to see how well it does on the long end. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 10:17:54 AM · #5 |
They look good and i have a question in the first image.
Generally when i take these kind of lake photo surrounded by green trees on a cloudy/sunny day, by default the sky gets blown out.
If i want the sku the lake gets underexposed.
I know there are ways like using gND filter and photo stitching for getting a good composition and exposure.
Without using these methods and with just my Rebelxt (18-55mm 3.5-5.6 lens) Is it possible to achive this kind of photo.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 10:20:26 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Got the lens today. Couldn't wait to shoot.
This is a shot of a "pond" between the Mississippi River and the levee.
|
Just curious, was there any post processing on this shot or is it right out of the camera? |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 10:21:54 AM · #7 |
Saj, Its almost the same kind of question i have posted just before you.
Lets hear some reply. |
|
|
|
05/09/2006 08:08:28 PM · #8 |
I have a Nikon 18-200 lens and noted some discrepancy wheb I compared it with my thre non-DX lenses (18-70, 70-300, and 80-400).
I chose to compare the images with all the telephoto lenses set at 200mm and discovered that the image with the 18-200 is smaller than the other two. Specifically, at 200mm the 18-200 produced an image that was the same size as the other lenses produced when set at 135mm. On the low end, the 18-200 when set at 18mm also produced an image smaller thatn the 18-70 lens when it was set at 18mm. Basically this lens had a focal lenght range that seemed to go from 12-135mm and would produce the 35mm equivalent of an 18-200. Has anyone else noticed this anomoly??
Peter |
|
|
|
05/09/2006 08:37:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PeterCmar:
I have a Nikon 18-200 lens and noted some discrepancy wheb I compared it with my thre non-DX lenses (18-70, 70-300, and 80-400).
I chose to compare the images with all the telephoto lenses set at 200mm and discovered that the image with the 18-200 is smaller than the other two. Specifically, at 200mm the 18-200 produced an image that was the same size as the other lenses produced when set at 135mm. On the low end, the 18-200 when set at 18mm also produced an image smaller thatn the 18-70 lens when it was set at 18mm. Basically this lens had a focal lenght range that seemed to go from 12-135mm and would produce the 35mm equivalent of an 18-200. Has anyone else noticed this anomoly??
Peter |
When I bought my camera (d70 with the DX kit lens) the sales person told me that on DX lenses I should not apply the multiplier (1.5) on them because they are made to be the equivalent of 35mm. I've never heard anyone on here talk about that though so I just assumed it was an unenlightened sales person and everyone would laugh at me if I said such a thing. If it's true though in a way it's be kind cool to not have to think about the multiplier but on the other hand it could make things MUCH more confusing if you have multiple lenses - some DX and some non-DX. |
|
|
|
05/09/2006 09:59:17 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by PeterCmar:
I have a Nikon 18-200 lens and noted some discrepancy wheb I compared it with my thre non-DX lenses (18-70, 70-300, and 80-400).
I chose to compare the images with all the telephoto lenses set at 200mm and discovered that the image with the 18-200 is smaller than the other two. Specifically, at 200mm the 18-200 produced an image that was the same size as the other lenses produced when set at 135mm. On the low end, the 18-200 when set at 18mm also produced an image smaller thatn the 18-70 lens when it was set at 18mm. Basically this lens had a focal lenght range that seemed to go from 12-135mm and would produce the 35mm equivalent of an 18-200. Has anyone else noticed this anomoly??
Peter |
This is a serious discrepancy that needs clarification. Hopefully, somebody in the know will address this issue in this thread.
I'd definitely like to know what reality is regarding the 1.5X factor and these lenses. |
|
|
|
05/10/2006 07:55:36 AM · #11 |
| An addition to my previous post is that the Nikno website lists the specs for the 18-200 lens stating that it has a 35mm equivalent of 27-300mm meaning that in their listing Nikon is applying the multiplier. My point is that focal length is focal length, and if Nikon intended to give us a 35mm equivalent of 200mm by selling a lens that is 135mm they should have stated that and given the actual focal length (12-135mm) in their advertising and on the website. |
|
|
|
05/10/2006 08:20:14 AM · #12 |
No review has mentioned this discrepancy before. I quickly checked Thom Hogan - he reckons it's equivalent to 28-300, but he does not get the same focal distance at 200mm as with his 70-200
See the review here:
//www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm |
|
|
|
05/11/2006 12:05:52 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by PeterCmar:
I have a Nikon 18-200 lens and noted some discrepancy wheb I compared it with my thre non-DX lenses (18-70, 70-300, and 80-400).
I chose to compare the images with all the telephoto lenses set at 200mm and discovered that the image with the 18-200 is smaller than the other two. Specifically, at 200mm the 18-200 produced an image that was the same size as the other lenses produced when set at 135mm. On the low end, the 18-200 when set at 18mm also produced an image smaller thatn the 18-70 lens when it was set at 18mm. Basically this lens had a focal lenght range that seemed to go from 12-135mm and would produce the 35mm equivalent of an 18-200. Has anyone else noticed this anomoly??
Peter |
could you post a couple example shots - 135mm on the 18-200 vr and 200mm on the other lens (of the same scene)? |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 09:53:12 AM · #14 |
Nikon got it right and I did not. When I first noticed what I thought was a problem, I was comparing a DX lens with a non-DX lens. I have since been informed that Nikon uses a smaller image circle in the dx lens series to cover the digital sensor format. This results in the image not being cropped as much and more of the filed of view of the lens is recorded on the sensor (the angle of view is increased with the DX lenses).
I first compared the 18-200 DX with a non-DX 80-400 (both set at 200 mm) and noticed the difference in the images. I went back and compared the 18-200 with another DX lens I already had (the 18-70 mm) and the images were identical when both lenses were set at either 70mm or 18mm.
Next time, I won't try comparing apples and oranges.
Peter |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 10:05:39 AM EDT.
