The Official Nikon Thread

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo

It's probably about 2 miles from my house to Alexandra Palace (give or take), and the flats are a bit less than a mile. The lens was at full zoom for that pic.

If you make it full sized on imageshack you can just about make out the blue lamposts infront of the palace

ooo impressive

it's so hard trying to find what lens to have

[Medo]

Helium why not go for the amazing Nikon 18-200mm VR? Yes it's a bit expensive but it would mean no lens changing.

It's the only lens I use.

But it's a bit big and heavy, but it feels nice and solid on my D40.

[NothingBetterToDo]

i had a look at that one, but the cheapest i could find it for was £380......so i instantly stopped looking at

If i used the camera very often i would have considered it, but it's really only an occasional hobby, so i couldn't justify spending that much money. It would be like buying a sports car and leaving it parked in the Garage all the time.

Lens changing will be a bit of a pain, but meh...i'll live. Photography isn't for penny pinchers like me

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by Medo

Helium why not go for the amazing Nikon 18-200mm VR? Yes it's a bit expensive but it would mean no lens changing.

It's the only lens I use.

But it's a bit big and heavy, but it feels nice and solid on my D40.

hmmm so im guessing it's a great all rounder lens?

[Medo]

Originally Posted by Helium

hmmm so im guessing it's a great all rounder lens?

It is indeed. I've had mine for over a month but haven't yet had time to truly test it. But from what I've seen so far it gives great images from 18 all the way to 200mm without loss of sharpness. Also the price keeps coming down. I got mine for £417 but now you can find it £50 cheaper from places like amazon.

[PhilBee]

Been considering the 18-200mm lens as a replacement for my D80 kit lens (18-135mm) , but will it really make 400 quids worth of difference ?.

[Medo]

I wouldn't recommend it if you've got the 18-135mm, the extra zoom and VR is not worth it. But I would recommend you get the Nikon 70-300mm VR instead.

For £400 you can get the 70-300mm + the 50mm f1.8.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo

Lens changing will be a bit of a pain, but meh...i'll live. Photography isn't for penny pinchers like me

Originally Posted by Uncle Medo

It is indeed. I've had mine for over a month but haven't yet had time to truly test it. But from what I've seen so far it gives great images from 18 all the way to 200mm without loss of sharpness. Also the price keeps coming down. I got mine for £417 but now you can find it £50 cheaper from places like amazon.

i'll wait for the price to come down just that ickle bit more













...provided the temptation doesn't become too much

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by Medo

For £400 you can get the 70-300mm + the 50mm f1.8.

Do all Nikon lenses fit all Nikon cameras ? I have a Nikon D200 with an 18-70mm (f3.5-4.5) and a Sigma 70-300 (f4-5.6) lens (which isn't that great). I was wondering about buying something with a shallower depth of field or perhaps something with a wider angle. Any recommendations ?

[Smarty]

...

[Medo]

Originally Posted by Smarty

Do all Nikon lenses fit all Nikon cameras ? I have a Nikon D200 with an 18-70mm (f3.5-4.5) and a Sigma 70-300 (f4-5.6) lens (which isn't that great). I was wondering about buying something with a shallower depth of field or perhaps something with a wider angle. Any recommendations ?

Yes all Nikon lenses made in the past 50 years will work on the new Nikon cameras. But some new Nikon 'G' lenses will not work on old manual cameras.

As for shallow depth of field I would recommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4 or the 1.8 version. For a wide angle lens I recommend the brilliant Sigma 10-20mm.

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by Medo

As for shallow depth of field I would recommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4 or the 1.8 version. For a wide angle lens I recommend the brilliant Sigma 10-20mm.

Thanks - I'm going to the States in September so will look out for them there as I'm sure they'll be cheaper.

[T0M]

Well, looks like I'm 'one of the gang now' (blame Medo for that!).. as of about an hour ago!

Just got myself a D40 (under Medo's advice, and after reading a fair old few reviews) and treated myself to a shiney new Nikon 16-85mm VR lens... this little beauty to be exact..
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/.../overview.html

In the end I decided if I was only going to use one lens most of the time I'd rather something with a slightly wider angle than longer zoom. And if I ever end up wishing I had more zoom there always the 70-300mm in Santa's stocking.. (or is he just pleased to see me?)

So excited I haven't even got it out of the box yet...

If I've done a really really stupid thing, please be kind and pretend I made a good choice, at least for a week or so....

Anyway, I imagine I'll be frequenting this neck of the woods a lot more in the weeks and months to come.

[Medo]

TOM congratulations and welcome to the Nikon family.
Once you're in there's no out.

That is a really good lens that is. I was going to get it instead of the 18-200mm I ended up getting. It's got plenty of zoom and optically it is really good quality. It's quite new, came out last year I think. Also the VR on this thing is fantastic. Overall you won't regret it, have fun.
I just hope the missus doesn't beat you up for spending a tad bit over your budget.

[T0M]

Cheers Medo (or should that be 'boss' now?)... as my Grandma always used Nikon, and she's pretty much why I have such a passion for photography I kinda feel like it's in the blood.

Just been giving it a quick test spin.. and so far so good! Can't believe how easy and intuitive the D40 is to use.. up and running in no time. The lens seems great, although I've not yet had a chance to upload my shots and check out the quality in great detail yet. It's a heck of a lot heavier than the standard 18-55mm, almost alarmingly so! Is that because of the extra glass, or the VR system (which is fab by the way!)?

Overall I'm very happy... although have just got the post-purchase jitters... wondering if I should have gone for the D60 with the 18-55mm lens, or whether I should have splashed out that little bit extra on the 18-200mm... arghhhhhh! :argh:

To be fair though, this lens does what I want it to, it gives me those few extra mm at the wide end, which really seems to make a difference, and should be great for my 'urban photo' shots.. and gives me a perfectly sufficient zoom range for 90% of the everyday situations I'll be using it in. At the end of the day you adapt to whatever kit you've got I guess. At some point in the future a mega zoom would be good, but this lens means that when I do get that zoom I can make sure it's extra loooooooooong..

In the mean time I'd better take some stirling shots of my little lad to appease the inevitable wrath of his mother..

Anyway, cheers for all your advice Meedy.. you're a rock of sense in a sea of opinion chaos. (Just wait till the Canonites hear about this though... sounds almost biblical doesn't it, 'Thus the Nikonites went forth and defeated the Canonites at the valley of DeeEsselarr..') One last question, what sort of lens filter would you reccomend for the 16-85mm?

Have a on me (although obviously I'll have to owe you, cause I'm now skint for the next few months!).

[Medo]

Yes that's right, it's heavy because of all that fine Nikon glass also the VR adds a few grams too; the kit lens is all plastic. Personally I find the heaviness nice, it balances out the camera body nicely.
With my 18-200mm lens I found that VR should only be used when needed, i.e. low light situations and towards the telephoto end of the lens. Otherwise it can get in your way, like for example when you need speed and quick focus it can slow things down a little, also it drains the battery faster. So turn the VR off when it's nice and sunny.
I would recommend a UV filter for that lens, not because it makes any difference to the pictures (granted it can give you sharper images of the skyline when the sky is all hazy and stuff, but that is not too much of a gain) but because your new lens needs protection. A regular UV filter will protect your expensive lens against scratches and fingerprints and stuff.

I expect pictures soon.

[T0M]

Cheers Medo. I agree that the weight feels nice, very 'solid', although it'll take a bit of getting used to after using my dinky IXUS for so long! It does seem to ballance the camera nicely though.

Point taken re. the VR. I've kinda figured the same thing, although I've been trying a few indoor low light shots tonights and it's proved very useful.

Can you recomend a particular make of UV filter or give a guide as to what I should expect to pay.. is there much difference between them?

[T0M]

Ok, here we go, with all of half an hours experience.. hopefully these will help pacify the missis once she sees the credit card bill..








I know it's early days, and a bit cliched, but I'm totally blown away by the quality of this camera! The images are incredibly sharp and rich in detail, even in the relatively poor lighting conditions I've been using... can't wait to give it it's first proper 'road test'.. watch this space..

[Medo]

Well Hoya and Hama are well respected for making decent filters, but I've found no brand filters are also adequate. Amazon is the cheapest place for filters.

Here is a Hama 67mm UV filter for under £10.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hama-Filter-...112579&sr=1-11

Don't buy from camera shops like Jessops and whatnot, they would charge £30 for the same filter.

[T0M]

Cheers Medo, sounds like a worthwhile investment!