• 11-02-2007, 03:14 PM
    Grandpaw
    35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    I am taking a photography class at college and the teacher gave us some B&W film to shoot. It has been awhile since I had my Nikon F's out with the 80 to 230 zoom on it taking pictures. I have tried to hold that heavy lens steady and it was going everywhere. When I tried the Nikon D80 with the 18 to 200 zoom at the store I could hardly tell it was on the camera. WOW what a big difference. I am just waiting untill the day after Thanksgiving to see if the D80 and lens go on sale, either way I plan on ordering on the 23rd. I hope they have a sale on this setup. Wish me luck, Jeff
  • 11-02-2007, 04:44 PM
    Frog
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    How heavy is that 80-230?
  • 11-02-2007, 05:35 PM
    Grandpaw
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frog
    How heavy is that 80-230?

    It is actually a 90 to230 zoom. It is at least twice as long as the 18 to 200 Nikon VR lens that I will be getting and several times heavier. By the time I could get it focused and zoomed in on what I wanted to take a picture of it had moved. For me this lens is a tripod lens only. I have a 43mm to 86 that is short and is light for my Nikon F that is not bad at all.

    I am looking forward to getting the D80 and vr zoom, Jeff
  • 11-02-2007, 06:27 PM
    another view
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    Heavy, long lenses are tough to hand hold - especially for us coffee drinkers. :)

    It's pretty amazing how such small and lightweight lenses can be so good (compared to what was available years ago). And with high ISO's, fast apertures aren't quite as important in a lot of situations as they used to be.
  • 11-02-2007, 08:43 PM
    Old Timer
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    I actually find a lens with a little more heft to be easier to control than some of these feather weight lenses. Maybe it's just that I'm a dinosaur and I grew up with heavy glass.
  • 11-03-2007, 11:55 AM
    Franglais
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    I have the 80-200 f2.8 AFS which is huge and heavy. I use it with the battery pack on the D200 because I find I need something to hold on to. The whole thing is pretty stable because it's so heavy. But the 18-200 has VR so it is probably even more stable (never done a comparison).

    The 80-200 focusses better, however. Occasionally the 18-200 hesitates at the tele end.
  • 11-03-2007, 05:46 PM
    Grandpaw
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    Thanks for every ones responses. I would like to add that I am a little unique in that the pinkie finger and the finger next to it on my right hand were shortened several years ago by my table saw. Also last year I had a pinched nerve in my right elbow and had to have a operation on it to move the nerve. The result is that half of my right hand is numb and has lost a lot of its strength.

    I just thought I would throw this little bit of information out there so you won't think I'm a big weeny not being able to hold the lens up. It is just a little bit of a challenge that the average guy doesn't have. Using that Nikon F with an FTN meter on it and add a long heavy lens and it is a lot of weight for basically two good fingers and a thumb to hold up and be steady.

    Nothing I can't live with but sometimes I have to adjust to make things work better for me. I am really liking the lighter equipment that digital has to offer, Jeff
  • 11-05-2007, 09:13 AM
    pweb
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    Jeff, the 18-200 mm is a very good lens -- you should enjoy it. As a petite person, I have a hard time dealing with big, heavy equipment (like the 80-400, which is heavier and slower lens). Also, I don't like dealing with a tripod -- I'd rather wander around grabbing shots as I find them. switching quickly between flower macros, moving wildlife and landscapes. The 18-200 lets me to do all that for hours at a time, plus I can holdhold and get clear shots at sunrise/set. Just watch out for some distortion of buildings and tall trees in the 18-20+ range.
  • 11-06-2007, 02:05 PM
    Grandpaw
    Re: 35 lens zoom compared to digital zoom
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pweb
    Jeff, the 18-200 mm is a very good lens -- you should enjoy it. As a petite person, I have a hard time dealing with big, heavy equipment (like the 80-400, which is heavier and slower lens). Also, I don't like dealing with a tripod -- I'd rather wander around grabbing shots as I find them. switching quickly between flower macros, moving wildlife and landscapes. The 18-200 lets me to do all that for hours at a time, plus I can holdhold and get clear shots at sunrise/set. Just watch out for some distortion of buildings and tall trees in the 18-20+ range.

    I have read many good things about this lens and I am very anxious to own one. I am waiting untill the day after Thanksgiving to order my equipment with hopes that it might be on sale. Whether it is or not it will get ordered then, Jeff