Zoom lenses

[jfinke]

I'm no expert, but I believe this means the aperture is open to the widest it goes (lowest f/#).

Example: If you are shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, using an aperture of 2.8 would be "wide open", whereas an aperture of f/5.6 would be considered "stopped down."

I'm not positive, but I don't think focal length (the zoom) of the lens has anything to do with it.

You are correct.

 

[bob100]

I'm no expert, but I believe this means the aperture is open to the widest it goes (lowest f/#).

Example: If you are shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, using an aperture of 2.8 would be "wide open", whereas an aperture of f/5.6 would be considered "stopped down."
I'm not positive, but I don't think focal length (the zoom) of the lens has anything to do with it.

for this lens "wide open" and "narrow open" at any focal length are the same thing!
this lens (like many other cheaper zooms) has an minimum aperture for most focal lengths at 5.6 and as a practical matter the "wide open" and other apertures and 250mm focal length are the same so it doesn't matter. I believe the original question was directed at the longer focal lengths but the aperture for all the pics is f 5.6 (and 5.6 for all the pics in the linked set)
everything I've shot with this lens - birds, planes, sports, concerts - it's all shot at 5.6 aperture.
that's the trade-off - for most focal lengths the f stop is the same 5.6
"wide open" and any other aperture f stops are the same as 250mm or other focal lengths - if I could get a lower aperture I would go for it !

 

[adisneymama]

I hope someone here can help me! I took a lot of great pictures today at my DD's field day. Some of them I would like to zoom in and then save them for printing. I have a Nikon D40x. I know how to zoom them and can get them just where I want them, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to save the image once I'm done. Anyone out there know? Thanks!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I hope someone here can help me! I took a lot of great pictures today at my DD's field day. Some of them I would like to zoom in and then save them for printing. I have a Nikon D40x. I know how to zoom them and can get them just where I want them, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to save the image once I'm done. Anyone out there know? Thanks!

You could use software like photoshop elements or Paint shop pro to edit and crop the photo and then save as another image name. Are you talking about zooming in the photo image while it's in the camera on the memory card? I didn't think you could zoom/crop the image in camera.

 

[seashoreCM]

I would strongly recommend uploading the pictures to your computer as-is in the best quality manner possible and maintaining those originals.

Once in the computer, just about any photo editing software should allow you to save (under a differrent name) the zoomed or cropped or whatever results you come up with.

 

[adisneymama]

I will for my personal use LOL. These are pics that I just wanted to quickly upload to a DVD for DD's teacher. So not really doing all the fancy stuff right now. But I did remember how to do it! It is part of the trim feature. I knew I could do it because I have before. I just couldn't remember how!

Anyway, I just wanted to save them to the memory card so that transferring to the dvd would be easier and faster for me.

Thanks!

 

[kaffinito]

Hi All,

Long story short, DH has taken up photography with my D60 and my 70-200mm lens. He's been shooting birds, railroad tracks, and such and is pretty darned good at it too.

So instead of getting him a D40 and letting him use that, he (well, I) decided that I would upgrade to a D90. Problem is, that he will still have my zoom, and I will need one myself.

So my requirements are, fast focusing, low light ability, and not too pricey if possible. I've been looking at the 18-200 or the 70-300mm lenses.

What are your suggestions?

TIA!
Karen

 

[VVFF]

Hi All,

Long story short, DH has taken up photography with my D60 and my 70-200mm lens. He's been shooting birds, railroad tracks, and such and is pretty darned good at it too.

So instead of getting him a D40 and letting him use that, he (well, I) decided that I would upgrade to a D90. Problem is, that he will still have my zoom, and I will need one myself.

So my requirements are, fast focusing, low light ability, and not too pricey if possible. I've been looking at the 18-200 or the 70-300mm lenses.

What are your suggestions?

TIA!
Karen

Neither of the lenses you picked are going to have great low light ability. That will be expensive if you want to stick with Nikon. Maybe you should look into third party alternatives.

 

[YEKCIM]

Hi All,

Long story short, DH has taken up photography with my D60 and my 70-200mm lens. He's been shooting birds, railroad tracks, and such and is pretty darned good at it too.

So instead of getting him a D40 and letting him use that, he (well, I) decided that I would upgrade to a D90. Problem is, that he will still have my zoom, and I will need one myself.

So my requirements are, fast focusing, low light ability, and not too pricey if possible. I've been looking at the 18-200 or the 70-300mm lenses.

What are your suggestions?

TIA!
Karen

If the 70-200mm lens you refer to is the 70-200VR Nikkor, neither of the options you listed (18-200, 70-300) are going to measure up. Both are good lenses (assuming they are the VR Nikkor versions) but are both variable aperture and would not be considered as good low-light lenses. Maybe a little clarification on what kinds of low-light situations you anticipate and an idea of your lens budget would help.

~Ed

 

[kaffinito]

Humm. If I put aside my low light requirement, and reword my question, which zoom lens would be a faster and sharper replacement for the 55-200mm vr that my DH is going to take?

I can reasonably afford anything under $900.00, but wouldn't mind a cheaper suggestion.

Thanks!

 

[YEKCIM]

Humm. If I put aside my low light requirement, and reword my question, which zoom lens would be a faster and sharper replacement for the 55-200mm vr that my DH is going to take?

I can reasonably afford anything under $900.00, but wouldn't mind a cheaper suggestion.

Thanks!

I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it the 70-200VR that you have, or the 55-200VR? There is quite a bit of difference between those two lenses.

Given your reworded question and considering only the two lenses you mentioned, I think the answer lies in what your intended use is. The 18-200VR is a very good, versatile lens, by most accounts, and covers a wide focal length range. The 70-300VR is an outstanding lens for the money, but obviously, you give up the wide angle aspect in favor or more reach.

It really depends on what kind of shooting you prefer. You might also look at a two lens option, of 70-300VR and a wider zoom to complement it...18-55VR, 18-70, Tamron 17-50/2.8, or something else in that range.

~Ed

 

[annnewjerz]

It really depends on what you want the lens for, I'd think. If you want a good "walk-around" lens that you can leave on for most shooting situations, the 18-200VR would be a good lens to choose.

If you are fine with changing lenses and carrying two around to meet your needs, I would go with the 70-300VR. It seems to get great reviews, has 100mm extra reach over the 18-200VR and is less expensive as well.

If you want to try to get something that will do better in lower light, the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens will autofocus on your D90 (but not on the D60), has a constant 2.8 aperture and can be bought new for your max price range (about $950ish). The downside is that the lens lacks VR, but with the D90 you can get away with pretty high ISOs so you may be able to boost your ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed that it won't matter anyway.

Good luck and happy shopping!

 

[kaffinito]

I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it the 70-200VR that you have, or the 55-200VR? There is quite a bit of difference between those two lenses.

Given your reworded question and considering only the two lenses you mentioned, I think the answer lies in what your intended use is. The 18-200VR is a very good, versatile lens, by most accounts, and covers a wide focal length range. The 70-300VR is an outstanding lens for the money, but obviously, you give up the wide angle aspect in favor or more reach.

It really depends on what kind of shooting you prefer. You might also look at a two lens option, of 70-300VR and a wider zoom to complement it...18-55VR, 18-70, Tamron 17-50/2.8, or something else in that range.

~Ed

Oh jeez! I meant the 55-200 vr. I'm sorry about that, it does make a bit of difference in my post, eh?

I have the 18-55 VR currently, but DH might get that one with the D60 since I've hardly used it at all. I currently have the Sigma 10-20, the Nikor 18-55, the 55-200 vr, the 50mm AF-S, and a 105mm VR lens.

I really don't like the 55-200mm VR, it seems to hunt too much and was not fast enough for shooting birds or for the Safari at WDW. More than half of my pics with that lens are throwaways since they are all blurry. I just want a better lens for the distance shots.

The 18-200 sounds like it might be a good one for the money.

It really depends on what you want the lens for, I'd think. If you want a good "walk-around" lens that you can leave on for most shooting situations, the 18-200VR would be a good lens to choose.

If you are fine with changing lenses and carrying two around to meet your needs, I would go with the 70-300VR. It seems to get great reviews, has 100mm extra reach over the 18-200VR and is less expensive as well.

If you want to try to get something that will do better in lower light, the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens will autofocus on your D90 (but not on the D60), has a constant 2.8 aperture and can be bought new for your max price range (about $950ish). The downside is that the lens lacks VR, but with the D90 you can get away with pretty high ISOs so you may be able to boost your ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed that it won't matter anyway.

Good luck and happy shopping!

That's another really good suggestion. I think this decision is going to be more difficult than deciding between the D90 and the D300!

Maybe I should stick with the 18-200, and use that and the 10-20 on my trips.

 

[YEKCIM]

Based on your current setup, I'd say go for the 70-300VR. You are already covered on the wide and ultrawide end and have an excellent macro. Only reason to choose the 18-200VR (IMO) would be the convenience of not having to change lenses. Depends on your shooting style, though. My tendency is to "shoot long" so my tele-zoom spends a lot more time on my camera than my wide-zoom. YMMV...

~Ed

 

[kaffinito]

Based on your current setup, I'd say go for the 70-300VR. You are already covered on the wide and ultrawide end and have an excellent macro. Only reason to choose the 18-200VR (IMO) would be the convenience of not having to change lenses. Depends on your shooting style, though. My tendency is to "shoot long" so my tele-zoom spends a lot more time on my camera than my wide-zoom. YMMV...

~Ed

I hear you. I'm the opposite though - my 50mm lives on my camera. (Or at least it did until DH got his hands on it). I typically carry a bag with another lens in it anyway on vacations and don't mind changing lenses on the fly so the 70-300 would be a good asset.

Thanks for the help!

 

[My2Girls66]

I use the Nikon 18-135mm and the 70-300mmVR. Great combo. I love my 70-300mmVR. They would be around $900 for both.
Another option..Tamron and Sigma also make constant 2.8 lenses in 28-70 and 70-200mm that get pretty good reviews for the money and are much more reasonably priced than the Nikon versions. I don't have either so I can't comment personally but I've heard good things about the Tamron 28-75mm. I think it would be around $1100 for both.
Here are some reviews.
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=213177

 

[YesDear]

TO the original poster.... You threw us with your original post. The difference in the 70-200 which is around $1900 and the 50-200 which is around $250 is a quantum difference.

I agree with the other posters. I would also generally say that the consumer grage lenses will not focus as fast as the pro grade glass. You also have to be aware there is a learning curve on focusing at 200 or 300mm. You are creating motion as you move the camera and the subject being focused on is also moving. On a D40 the focus points are not that strong. I think the D40 has 4 where the D90 has 54! So it is harder to focus on far away things!

 

[oregondaddyof2]

I also have a D60, and recently purchased a 18-135mm lens for the convenience of the zoom. I bought it with the 18-55, and 55-200vr lens, but got tired of changing. I was really wanting to buy the 18-200mm lens, but just couldn't find that money in my budget this year. That lens has gotten great reviews and seems to be a really nice piece of glass to add to any set up.

On a side note, I am buying another new lens tomorrow specifically for the night shots and dark ride shots when i go back in September. I am getting the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens. It is really inexpensive ($200) and offers (from what i can tell on all the reviews) great low light pictures. We will see what happens. I was thinking the 50mm f/1.8, but problem I face is that I want a little more of a wide angle, and the fact that as said above, it will not auto focus on a D60. The 35mm will autofocus .

I am wanting to upgrade to a D90 as well, but am leaning towards the D300 instead, if I convince my wife to let me spend that much .

 

[annnewjerz]

I think the D40 has 4 where the D90 has 54! So it is harder to focus on far away things!

Now I'm the one that's confused!! Either I'm an idiot (which is a definite possibility ) or my D90 has 11 focus points.

I seem to recall the D300 having in the 50s, which was one of the things that almost swayed me to saving for just a litttttle while longer and getting the D300 over the D90.

 

[wenrob]

Now I'm the one that's confused!! Either I'm an idiot (which is a definite possibility ) or my D90 has 11 focus points.

I seem to recall the D300 having in the 50s, which was one of the things that almost swayed me to saving for just a litttttle while longer and getting the D300 over the D90.

You're not an idiot, a little crazy maybe... The D90 has 11 focus points.

OP, the 18-200 is not a fast lens I don't think it will meet your needs as far as birding goes. However if you're looking at it for a nice walk around I happen to know someone who is getting rid of theirs in favor of a multi lens set up...