Ok, ready to purchase a new lens

[Stoker1]

Would hope to keep the price under $800.

Camera - Nikon D50

Primary use for this lens - Action. Kids playing, soccer games, and my main love... radio control boats. They're tiny targets if you haven't tried photographing them.

A nice all around version would be good, but I've been given the go-ahead to start shopping around.

So far, I've looked at this one & a few others.
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

Take care,
Jamie
<!--aoeui-->

[Scream And Fly]

Jamie, the choice is clear - the Nikon 80-200 AF 2.8 (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_80200_28/index.htm). You do NOT want the 18-200 for action photography. Spend the extra $150 and go for the full-blown pro lens. The 80-200 retails for about $950, if I remember. The 80-200 will spank the pants off the 18-200, and it's a constant 2.8 aperture, meaning it's awesome in low light. Trust me on this, it's money well spent.

[Casey]

I second what Greg said. I have one and it's a great lens!

[Stoker1]

Will do.

Just found some on Amazon for $900 new and a few bucks shipping. Might even wait a day or two just to search for a better deal. Still, I can justify the cost no doubt.

Thanks Casey & Greg.

[pyro]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

Or if you want the latest and greatest, AF-S and VR... :D
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

[hsbob]

i disagree. the len greg suggested is a great lens [i have the sigma equ]. the 18-200 len is the way to go. it covers the 27mm to 300mm 35 equ range. that means you can use it for xmas picture indoor without changing lens where you need the wide angle. with the 80 is not wide enough. remember every time you change a len you open the camera to dust.[keep it pointed down or in a lens change bag and never in windy dust conditions]. thats why i like the 18-200. i see that there is a 18 to 250 come out shorty from tamron. use the money you'll save to buy a good flash. those on camera flashes are only good for 10feet+-. for 200 to 300 the flash is good for up to 60', with the $300 capiable of handling the optional battery pk.

[Stoker1]

Chad, that $1600 lens is the first one I pulled up. Almost dropped a duce in my pants from sticker shock.:eek:

Actually thats the lense my German buddy uses and he swears by it. He's got much more leeway than I do so I'll settle for the cheaper version for now.

We'll be in touch in the next few weeks. Weather isn't the best but I'd like to get some good pics of the rc boats before it gets too damn cold.:D

[Scream And Fly]

Chad, that $1600 lens is the first one I pulled up. Almost dropped a duce in my pants from sticker shock.:eek:

Actually thats the lense my German buddy uses and he swears by it. He's got much more leeway than I do so I'll settle for the cheaper version for now.

The 70-200 is the mainstay of all my action work. It's what I use for most of my photos. Keep in mind that the 80-200 has virtually identical image quality as the 70-200. The 70-200 is essentially the lens that will replace the 80-200 for two reasons - it has VR and it's an AF-S lens. No matter though, the 80-200 will perform on par with the 70-200.

[Scream And Fly]

For action photography, the 18-200 is dreadful. It needs very good light for any serious action photography. It's relatively slow aperture and barrell distortions make it out of the question for me - especially for its $750++ price tag. I understand the benefits of having a "do everything" lens, but when image quality is what really matters above anything, a pro lens is the only answer. Who cares about dust on the sensor? Clean, and take more photos. What matters is the photos you end up with. :)



i disagree. the len greg suggested is a great lens [i have the sigma equ]. the 18-200 len is the way to go. it covers the 27mm to 300mm 35 equ range. that means you can use it for xmas picture indoor without changing lens where you need the wide angle. with the 80 is not wide enough. remember every time you change a len you open the camera to dust.[keep it pointed down or in a lens change bag and never in windy dust conditions]. thats why i like the 18-200. i see that there is a 18 to 250 come out shorty from tamron. use the money you'll save to buy a good flash. those on camera flashes are only good for 10feet+-. for 200 to 300 the flash is good for up to 60', with the $300 capiable of handling the optional battery pk.

[pyro]

I WILL own a 70-200 VR by next spring. :D

[Scream And Fly]

I WILL own a 70-200 VR by next spring. :D

Chad, if I had a D40 with that lens I could get the same images as I do any of my camera bodies. But then again, I could do the same with the 80-200. The 80-200's image quality is almost equal to the 70-200 - so close that only a resolution chart will show the very slight difference. :)

[pyro]

It's not just the glass I want, it's the newer/better design, faster autofocus and especially the VR I'm willing to pay for. My hand isn't nearly as steady as yours. ;)

[Scream And Fly]

Just keep in mind that 99% of the time, for action shots I never use VR. It's great to have though, and it does help in many situations.

[pyro]

It's great to have though, and it does help in many situations.

That's how I think. I always bring things with me "just in case."

The AF-S converter compatibility, improved M/A switch, detachable tripod collar, and the included hood are worthy bonuses with the 70-200VR. The hood for the other lens is $30 separately.

[hsbob]

dont let the vr hip fool you. it will let you take pictures in lower lite if everything is stactic. if the boat is moving it will be out of focus if the shutter speed is too slow. the surrounding lake and shore will be in focus.

yes greg the 18-200 needs lite thats why i suggest in a flash beyond the on camera one.

not every one has three cameras [like i do] where you dont change the lens. my 70-200 2.8 sigma [$750] is very sharp but its no good for say xmas front room pictures. for those i use a 18-35 nikon and flash.

[pyro]

My 18-135 is on the fritz. Noisy, slow, unreliable autofocus, racks in and out and never locks half the time, aperture isn't symmetrical, hair between the elements. I wore this thing out in 6 months, haha. I'm all done with cheap consumer-level lenses. I won't buy another that isn't a 2.8 or faster pro lens.

[jphii]

My 18-135 is on the fritz. Noisy, slow, unreliable autofocus, racks in and out and never locks half the time, aperture isn't symmetrical, hair between the elements. I wore this thing out in 6 months, haha. I'm all done with cheap consumer-level lenses. I won't buy another that isn't a 2.8 or faster pro lens.

I hear ya!!

[Scream And Fly]

My 18-135 is on the fritz. Noisy, slow, unreliable autofocus, racks in and out and never locks half the time, aperture isn't symmetrical, hair between the elements. I wore this thing out in 6 months, haha. I'm all done with cheap consumer-level lenses. I won't buy another that isn't a 2.8 or faster pro lens.

The 18-135 has very good image quality for a consumer lens, but it's.... plastic. If you're serious about photography, go for the pro lenses. Once you go there, you'll never touch a consumer lens again. Although I do use the tiny 18-55 that came with the D50 I bought for snapshots and it's fun.