Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens
pawihte
the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in
advance. Elaborations will be welcome.
Paul Furman
> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with
> the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in
> advance.
Correct.
> Elaborations will be welcome.
:-)
Focus
"pawihte" <paw...@news.invalid> wrote in message
news:gm2c45$eom$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
> Elaborations will be welcome.
I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
by a landslide and costs more.
Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
--
Focus
Jürgen Exner
See http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm which not only has a very
detailed compatibility matrix for the what but also excellent
explanation about the why.
BTW: you could have found out easily yourself by looking into the manual
or just following the standard route:
The lens is at least AI-P (designed after ~1989), so it is fully
compatible, unless the camera is a D40/40x/60 which would require an
AF-S for auto-focus, but which lens even is.
jue
measekite
Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
it.
pawihte
it certainly looked as if the two are fully compatible. But all
the sources I found, including the D90 document, listed
compatibility by type (AF-S, IF and so on) and none listed
specific lens models (maybe this is impracticable). I was worried
that I might have missed something, so I thought it would be best
to get confirmation here. Thanks again.
TheRealSteve
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkys...@oem.com>
wrote:
There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
Steve
measekite
That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you should
mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with the 16-85 on an
APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to change lenses if you
feel you need to.
TheRealSteve
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:12:24 GMT, measekite <inkys...@oem.com>
wrote:
Here you're rationalizing. If you shoot mostly street and landscapes
then the 16-85 is also the wrong lens for you. And you're not going
to get that "prize winning" opportunity shooting streets and
landscapes that have been shot a million times before by everyone else
with a digital camera.
We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what you'll
be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured much
better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around changing
lenses, you'll miss it.
BTW, since you seem to like Ken Rockwell (and I'll admit he does have
some valuable info on his site) you might be interested in what he has
to say about the 16-85 vs. 18-200.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm
The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
considering the loss of the long end.
For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me
to sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is
correctable if you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even
do it automatically.
Steve
Robert Coe
The gibbericity of that answer fully justifies the original question.
Bob (recognizing another reason to be satisfied that his cameras are Canons)
bmoag
the Sigma 18-200.
I have only me extensive personal experience with these lenses to go by, not
what I've read . . .
Jim
"pawihte" <paw...@news.invalid> wrote in message
news:gm2c45$eom$1...@news.albasani.net...
> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
> Elaborations will be welcome.
>
Jim
Jürgen Exner
Ok, long form for those, you can't read that fast:
Is the lens AI-P or better, i.e. post ~1989? If yes, then all features
will work with any DSLR. The OPs lens is.
EXCEPTION: The entry level D40/40x/60 (the OPs camera does not fall into
this group) requires AF-S for autofocus (the OPs lens does have AF-S,
i.e. it would autofocus even on those cameras).
>Bob (recognizing another reason to be satisfied that his cameras are Canons)
Good for you. If you prefer a blunt "No" to the question, if pre-1989
lenses can be used on today's bodies, instead of "Sure, tell me which
lens class you are talking about and I tell you which bodies will
work.", then that is certainly your choice.
I guess some people just can't handle anything more complex than a
single binary input parameter. As I said, your choice.
jue
J. Clarke
So where are you going to get them? You mean that Eisenstadt was a
damned fool to have been out on V-J Day with a 50mm on a Leica
shooting Times Square that has been shot millions of times before?
(No prize on that one but the cover of Life was enough prize for most
photographers in that era) I believe that you will be surprised at
the number of Pulitzer Prize shots that were taken in very ordinary
places that have, as you say, "been shot a million times before" and
what made them prizeworthy was what was going on in those places, not
the places themselves.
> We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
> prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what
> you'll
> be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
> possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured
> much
> better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around
> changing
> lenses, you'll miss it.
And it's also within the realm of possibility that you need to be
using a lens faster than an 18-200 or wider than 18mm or there is some
other circumstance that makes the 18-200 unsuitable. That's called
"luck". You don't plan your life around some nebulous "prize-winning
opportunity", you shoot whatever it is that you like to shoot or get
paid to shoot and if one of those shots is worthy of a prize so be it.
> BTW, since you seem to like Ken Rockwell (and I'll admit he does
> have
> some valuable info on his site) you might be interested in what he
> has
> to say about the 16-85 vs. 18-200.
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm
>
> The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and
> brick
> walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
> better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra
> cost
> considering the loss of the long end.
>
> For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain
> situations
> it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for
> me
> to sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is
> correctable if you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies
> even
> do it automatically.
>
> Steve
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
measekite
I do think he has some valuable information on his site but he also has a
lot of hype and BS that does cause controversy which is his intention.
More readers and more mouse clicks mean more $$$.
>
> The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
> walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
> better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
What about 16x20 with moderate cropping?
> considering the loss of the long end.
>
> For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
> it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me to
> sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is correctable if
> you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even do it
> automatically.
I am saying to have both.
>
> Steve
mianileng
Where I live, the Sigma costs only 60% of what the Nikkor does
and it's tempting. But "better optical performance from the
Sigma"? What I've read on the net seems to indicate the opposite.
And without having a chance to do comparative tests myself, I
have to rely on what I read. Opinions on this from anyone else?
nospam
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
the sigma is much worse, particularly its stabilization, which i could
see a difference in the viewfinder.
Paul Furman
Here's a super-short version of everything important with only very
odd/expensive/antique exceptions:
If it's AF, it'll meter on any Nikon DSLR.
To AF on a D60/D40, it has to be AF-S.
D90/D80/D70/D50 will AF any AF lens.
D200 and up meters with any lens.
DX lenses work on any DX body.
Exceptions:
45mm pancake lens was Ai-P with a chip but no AF. Some tilt/shift lenses
are like this also: manual focus but with a chip for metering.
10.5mm DX fisheye is not AF-S, so manual focus on a D60/D40.
I can't think of any other exceptions besides maybe that old fisheye
that needs the mirror locked up and pre-Ai which are antiques, that gets
complicated to explain. But the rules above work for all the rest of the
(hundreds?) of Nikon lenses made over the past 32 years.
> "pawihte" <paw...@news.invalid> wrote:
>> >Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with
>> >the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in
>> >advance. Elaborations will be welcome.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
TheRealSteve
Oh, wait, I should have made it more clear and emphasized the YOU in
you're. I'm not saying that no one can take a prize winning photo of
streets and landscapes. Just that measekite isn't going to. For him
to take some kind of prize winning photo, it's probably going to have
to be an unexpected situation. Something like you're walking along
the Hudson River and a plane just happens to land out in the middle of
the river. And a shot like that might be better captured with a 200mm
lens than an 85mm.
Also, the people who do take prize winning landscapes probably aren't
using an 16-85mm either.
>> We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
>> prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what
>> you'll
>> be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
>> possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured
>> much
>> better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around
>> changing
>> lenses, you'll miss it.
>
>And it's also within the realm of possibility that you need to be
>using a lens faster than an 18-200 or wider than 18mm or there is some
>other circumstance that makes the 18-200 unsuitable. That's called
Exactly! Now you're getting the point. There's all kinds of
comprimises and the 16-85 makes a comprimise in zoom range that the
18-200 doesn't make as much. The 18-200 pays for that by having twice
the distortion and slightly less resolution. But it's also a slightly
faster lens than the 16-85. In terms of real photography and a single
do-it-all lens and not shooting test charts, the lesser zoom range is
the biggest comprimise.
>"luck". You don't plan your life around some nebulous "prize-winning
>opportunity", you shoot whatever it is that you like to shoot or get
>paid to shoot and if one of those shots is worthy of a prize so be it.
Correct. But I'm not the one who brought up the "prize winning
opportunity." I'm the one that only tried to point out that there's a
chance that a prize winning opportunity might be better shot at 200mm
than 85mm. And by your statement above that there are circumstances
that make the 18-200 unsuitable, then there's certainly more
circumstances that make the 16-85 unsuitable since it's a slower lens
at every focal length than the 18-200, it only goes 2mm wider at the
short end but is severely shorter at the long.
Steve
TheRealSteve
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:10:20 GMT, measekite <inkys...@oem.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:40:53 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
>
>> The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
>> walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
>> better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
>
>What about 16x20 with moderate cropping?
The 18-200 is more than adequate for 16x20 with moderate cropping.
I've also printed shots taken at 200mm with the 18-200 and had them
blown up to 20x30 and have actually sold them for enough to pay for
the lens.
>> considering the loss of the long end.
>>
>> For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
>> it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me to
>> sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is correctable if
>> you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even do it
>> automatically.
>
>I am saying to have both.
They're both the same type of lens so I don't see a reason to have
both. If I have the 16-85 on and I want a longer fl, I have to carry
a 2nd lens around. And if I am, it's not going to be the 18-200. I'm
going to change to my 80-200 f/2.8.
And if I have the 18-200 on, I don't see there ever being a reason for
me to carry and change to the 16-85mm when I have better alternatives
available. If I want super-high quality I'll switch to the 50mm f/1.8
and zoom with my feet. Or if I want wider, I'll switch to my 12-24mm.
Or if I want higher quality at the long end, I'll switch to my 80-200
f/2.8.
I guess the decision for boils down to this: If I'm carrying both the
16-85 and the 18-200, I see very few to none situations where I'd
bother to switch from the 18-200 to the 16-85. The real-world quality
just isn't that spectacularly different and some of the differences
where the 16-85 is better (CA, distortion) are correctable in software
if I happen to get a shot I love. But I can see plenty of times I may
want to switch from the 16-85 to the 18-200 just for the longer reach.
So the decision of which one to carry if I only want to carry one
becomes pretty clear.
Now if the 16-85 was spectacularly better than the 18-200, say it was
about the quality of the 17-55 AF-S DX f/2.8 but not the price or
weight, I can see my choice being different.
Steve
C J Campbell
I like the 18-200 lens. Trouble is, my wife will not let me have it
back. It will work just fine on the D90.
I would ignore the comments about lens quality. Yes, it makes some
trade-offs to get its fantastic zoom ratio. Yes, this lens is a heck of
a lot of fun. The image quality is extremely good, all things
considered. The way some people talk around here you would think that
all your pictures will be unrecognizable distorted blurs.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
pawihte
I understand that some people can go a bit overboard in pointing
out minor shortcomings in a product. I've read the reviews and
scrutinized the test shots of this lens, and the image quality,
though not flawless, is quite satisfactory for my present
purpose.