Info wanted on: Nikon Camera and Lens

[Carlo]

I got the urge at the meeting this past weekend to pick up a decent digital camera. Using the 2mega pixal camera on my cell phone just doesn't cut it.

I have a few film based cameras and usually use either a 35mm or 50mm. I'd really like to take some shots of my tank and also have a good all around general purpose camera for everyday use.

My thoughts are to pick up a Nikon D200. Does anyone know how much of a difference there really is betweeen the D2Xs, D2Hs and the D200? If I purchase the D200 am I going to wish I got one of the other two instead?

I'm pretty sure I want to get the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor lens for general use. If anyone has this lens can you tell me how good it will perform for tank shots? Can you get any decent macro shots with it or do I want to also pickup the Close-Up Lenses:
105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor

If so would the 105mm probably be the best choice for tank shots?

Also if anyone has any other recommendations I'd be interested in hearing them.

Thanks,
Carlo

 

[kabal2]

i have the d80, and for what i read i tried, the best is put your money in the lens, the 60mm is good but you will have to do some cropping, i have tghe 105mm and im happy with it. sorry i cant help more
Gabe

 

[concept3]

Carlo, I have the D200 along with Phyllis (the club president, remember? LOL)

anyways, I have the 18-200 mm VR lens, the 60mm macro f2.8 and the 105mm VR macro as well.

For general purpose, the 18-200 VR is perfect.

For tank shots, you can use the same lens but you will get a better composition with either of the macro lenses listed. You will need to crop larger pictures to get a macro shot, rendering the picture a little grainy and sometimes out of focus.

I like the 60mm a lot, while Phyl likes the 105 mm which she has as well. I personally like the 60 because it's a much shorter lens and it's easier on my hands. It is not VR though, so it is not as forgiving as the 105 VR in terms of stability and shake. If you're ever in the market for the 105 VR, let me know, I can part with it since I barely use it, and you're welcome to try any of my lenses before you make a major lens purchasing decision.


Give me a few minutes. I just took 3 pictures, one from the 60mm, 105mm and the 18-200 from 14-15 feet away. I'm gonna resize them and you can compare them better.

 

[Carlo]

Thanks for all the great info so far.

I just got off the phone with a guy at a local camera shop (getting the itch) and he also suggested maybe looking at the Tamron AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) instead of the Nikon 18-200mm.

That of course would give a little more magnification and would probably be an almost ideal lens to have for general purpose use. Would I loose out on any features by going with the Tamron lens instead of the Nikon lens?

As far a macro lens go I don't think I'd want the 60mm. I'm torn between the 105mm with VR or the 200mm without VR. If they made a 200mm with VR I'd probably just go with that but... So let me ask this, for tank pictures how important do you think the VR comes into play for the macro lens?

Thanks,
Carlo

 

[concept3]

First pic is the 18-200 VR, second pic is the 60mm and the third is 105 VR. All shots on tripod 14-15 feet away, and I didn't bother with the subject matter, just made sure that the exposure meter was OK, that's why the tank itself is very bright.

 

[concept3]

So let me ask this, for tank pictures how important do you think the VR comes into play for the macro lens?

Thanks,
Carlo

NOt as important if you use a tripod, but if you've EVER tried taking a picture of a fish like a wrasse, the VR helps.


Give me a few more minutes and I'll take an IN-TANK SHOT with the 3 lenses (I won't use the Zoom on the 18-200 mm)

 

[Carlo]

Concept3.875 on the three shots you took with different lens, how much magnification were you using for each shot? Or I guess another way of asking, were each shot at the widest lens setting?

 

[Carlo]

I got a request for you, so I can get a better idea of the lens.

Could you take a closeup of the clam on the left side of the center piller? I'd really love to see the difference between the 18-200 and the 105 and how good the 18-200 lens can get for closeup type work.

I really appreciate you help with this.

Carlo

PS any thoughts on the Tamron lens I mentioned above? I've had great success with Tamron lens on my film based cameras but know the digital world is a little different so I need to ask.

 

[concept3]

Sorry, it took a little longer. Francis stopped by with the PA group buy stuff.
Right before he came, I did take pictures of the clam with all three again.

The Macro lens can't really be "zoomed in" like the standard 18-200 lens. I took the 18-200 lens with the widest angle available. ALl shots taken with a tripod, didn't bother to change f stops or shutter speed either.


Here they are:

105 MM

60MM

18-200

The camera lens was about 2 inches away from the front glass. The clam is about 13 inches from the lens. The 18-200 will not
focus any closer, so you can pretty much forget zooming in properly at this distance. You would need to be at least a foot and a half away
to do a "Macro" shot with the 18-200, which renders the picture with noise IME.


Personally, I have not used a Tamron or other lenses, there are a few people here who have them and they like it. Maybe they'll chime in


-Merv

 

[concept3]

The clam is only about 2 inches by the way!

 

[Phyl]

I really like the 105 for macro shots. I would get the 105 and the 1.7tc before I went with the 200mm macro lense. More versatility.

Merv really likes his 60mm. I personally like my 105 better. He says his 60 is faster at focusing on fast fish. I'd have to play with it a few more times to be sure.

The D200 is going to serve you quite well. I'm not at all disappointed in the purchase and don't have "camera envy" at all over the D2Xs and D2Hs.

I really like the ergonomics of the D200 over the 80. There are so many things at your fingertips without being overwhelming to use. Perfect combination.

I have a 17-55 (which I predominantly used at the meeting, LOVE LOVE LOVE this lens, just not for taking fish pics), a 105 (GREAT macro capability), 24-120 and a 55-200. I'm probably least impressed with the 55-200 lens. I'd like to see the 80-200 2.8 lens as an alternative to that one.

Five cents, please.

 

[mfisher2112]

WOW! That 105 really does make the difference, doesn't it! That is sweet.

 

[Carlo]

concept3.875 the last 3 pics you posted is exactly what I was looking for!

Out of curiosity, if you were to move back from the tank so you could get the camera to focus would you have been able to get something approaching the 105mm picture of the clam with the 18-200?

Good stuff so far. A picture is really better then a thousand words when talking about lenses. Sorry couldn't resist.

Carlo

 

[Carlo]

This is the best shot I can get of my tank at present thanks to my $39.95 3 mega pixel garbage camera.

I really look forward to getting a good camera and having fun with it!

 

[concept3]

Out of curiosity, if you were to move
back from the tank so you could get the camera to focus would you have been able to get something approaching the 105mm picture
of the clam with the 18-200?

Almost not kinda really because of the f value.

The 105 mm goes down to f2.8 and the 18-200 is a 3.5 I think. You would need a lower f stop to make that happen, that's why a
macro is a macro and a zoom is a zoom lens. Now remember, these pic are uncropped. Cropping what you want is a whole other story!

ALL of these are taken with the 60mm and cropped!!!

NOW just imagine what you would get cropping a 105mm pic. I've never tried LOL


BY the way, the pics of the lens comparisons are without flash.

 

[Carlo]

Simply beautiful shots!