PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[Peter Maguire]

I would have thought that the 18-200mm lens range is a difficult one for manufacturers, covering the wide angle to short telephoto range, and the Nikon lens, whilst more expensive, would give you the quality. As ever, you get what you pay for.
Having said that, I use Sigma's 10-20mm and 70-300mm lenses and find them to be very good, especially the 70-300 for which I have a dedicated supplementary lens for closeups (they don't make them any more, unfortunately)

[Anthony Darby]

I suppose it's a case of which technology is the weakest link? It used to be the film, then the number of pixels, now it's the lens. I often wonder the sense in putting an 8 mega-pixel capability in a mobile phone if the lens is smaller than a Smartie?!

[Doreen Mear]

Well, after deciding to go for the Nikon 18-200mm lens ( rather more than I'd have like to spend, though its tax refund!) I find it's not available! At least locally, sold out everywhere, one clerk said it had something to do with floods in Japan over the last several months damaging Nikon warehouses?? I may yet find it online, though a number of the retailers I've seen offering it there were also sold out...

Does anyone have opinions on the Sigma lenses for Nikon? specifically the same, 18-200mm-- any drawbacks to this substitute (significantly cheaper- from just over $400 to $499, compared to $799 to $869 for the Nikon)? Does the AF work properly for Nikon D3100? (or what about Tamron? I've seen that less than Sigma..)

Have you tried eBay for the Nikon lens? I bought mine on eBay 18 months ago. It was relatively cheap ("grey" market probably) so if it ever goes wrong and needs repairing, I don't know if the Nikon dealers will touch it, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take. There's a "manufacturer refurbished" model on sale for $660 from a USA Nikon dealer Cameta Camera on the site right now which might fit the bill?

Before I took the plunge with this lens, I canvassed Harry Jans' opinion, knowing he's a Nikon camera user. However, he uses the 50mm macro and the 18-200mm Sigma lenses, and we all know the superb quality of his photos. 

[David Pilling]

Hi,

I'd not heard of "focus stacking" until Peter Maguire mentioned it in this thread four weeks back. I got a copy of CombineZP (it is free) and I've had a go. It is interesting, below is a picture of what I like to think of as Naricssus pseudonarcissus ssp pseudonarcissus, the result of combining 10 photos.

Rather than move the camera I kept everything fixed and changed the focus. It seems to me the software is happier if the target is surrounded by background.

Why might the photo below be different to what one would get from a single shot - because it is in focus from the tip of the trumpet to the petals at the back. Could one have achieved the same result without focus stacking - probably because the photo had to be scaled down to 35% for upload here, by getting further away I could have had greater depth of field and still had a big enough image to upload.

[cohan]

Thanks for comments, all..
I have looked at Ebay, briefly, ( a few days or more back) and didn't see anything (except one of the Canadian camera retailers).. I'd hesitate to buy from an unknown seller there..
It sounds like the general opinion of Sigma 18-200 is not bad, from mentions here and what I've seen elsewhere?

The suggestion that not all Sigma lenses would be of equal quality- does this mean one 18-200 may not be as good as the next (and then, how do you know???) or that 18-200 might be better or worse than a different Sigma lens?

At the moment, it doesn't really seem as if buying the Nikon 18-200lens is an option, since it seems unavailable everywhere I've looked (even those that initially list it say its out of stock , or would need to be ordered- I doubt they can, since one regional store here told me all their Alberta stores have it on back order, and a couple of others say they have been trying to get it for months)..

However, I've started to get nervous about the whole idea of the single lens- while I still really don't like the idea of having to change lenses every few minutes ( I constantly go from macro to 18x on my old camera), I'm worried about the close-up capability of these 18-200 lenses, with minimum focus distances 45- 50 cm.... While I am not doing professional photos nor much printing currently, I do find it bothersome if I cannot get really sharp close shots of tiny flowers (I expect to be able to focus on matchhead size objects)..am I going to be frustrated with an 18-200?

If I have to resign myself to changing lenses in the field, I have also looked at the Nikon 40mm micro (supposed to be good for close-ups?) with the 55-300.. both seem to be available, and cheaper in combination than the 18-200 alone....

I'm trying to make a good choice here, since once this purchase is made, there will be no other lenses bought in the near future!
thanks for any further thoughts/advice

[David Lyttle]

Hello Cohan,

I use a Nikon 18-200 lens as my standard lens: it is a very versatile lens useful for landscape and plant photography for what it is it is not very expensive and appears to be available here in NZ. However for more critical closeup photography I use a Nikon D AF 60 mm micro lens. Since I purchased it several years ago they have introduced a Nikon AF-S 60mm Micro f2.8G ED,Nikon AF-S 85mm DX Micro f3.5G VR and Nikon AF-S 40mm f2.8 G micro which I cannot comment on as I have not used them. I bought the 60mm lens as it was the smallest (and cheapest) macro lens they produced at the time. I figured as it was the least complicated and they were probably able to get it right. All my recent plant postings have been taken with the 60 mm lens and the landscape shots with the 18-200 VR zoom lens. I do use a tripod for my plant shots.

[Peter Maguire]

Cohan,
If you are looking at macro lenses, then you could consider the Tamron 90mm macro lens (which probably clouds the issue a little further!). It gives a good 1:1 reprodution and is generally well regarded in comparative tests in camera magazines over here - I've been using one for many years now, and probably all of the close up pictures I've posted here (certainly the close-ups taken at shows) have been taken with this lens.
Some people over here prefer the the Sigma 150mm macro which is equally good, slightly more expensive, but has a longer each if you want to do close-ups of insects. Flowers, of course, don't fly away. 
I don't know how the price of these lenses compare with Nikon's 40mm macro, but their quality is certainly fine.

[hanninkj]

I use on my D300 the Micro Nikor 105 mm. The lens is of a high quality and I have made about 50000 pictures with this lens.
I have had also the 60 mm micro but for flowers the 105 mm is better.

Ton

[Anthony Darby]

I have a D300 with the 105 Micro Nikor and find it very good.

[TC]

I have been looking for suppliers of the Nikon 18-200 in the UK.  There does seem to be a problem with supply  If you are still interested in this lens, have you considered trying the UK.
I had a look at Greys of Westminsters site and they are quoting a UK price of £619.00 for this model.  That would be £513.00 exclusive of UK VAT. I make this about 813 Canadian Dollars. This firm export world-wide and their reputation is beyond reproach.  However you would be stuck with freight, insurance and Canadian Duty and sales tax.  It's just an idea.

[cohan]

Thanks again!
David, I have seen (online) the 60mm micro- its more expensive than the 40mm- that's about $299, and the 60mm over $500.. I haven't priced the 105mm.. I know the real 'macro' lenses I've looked at are out of my price range..

Peter, Ton and Anthony, thanks- a few more to check out! Back to the research tonight
The total budget currently is btwn $850 to $900, so if I am able to find a Nikon 18-200, that will be the only lens bought! However, if I were to get the Nikon 40mm at $300, then I could manage a 55-300 (on sale under $400), or the Sigma 18-200mm at $499..
I'm less worried about perfection in the telephoto- I suspect any of these options with the N D3100 will be better than the Panasonic Lumix (non SLR) 18x I've been using... But the Panasonic does give me crisp, close macro...(I should qualify that!! 'sufficiently crisp,close macro for my needs so far! As I say, if I can get good focus on matchhead size flowers, I'm happy!)

[Anthony Darby]

I have a wee moan. I have an Olympus "Tough TG-810 14 Mpixel" (which I got from Hong Kong via Google - half price). It replaces another Olympus model which was stolen by some lowlife. Both fitted into a pocket, so were handy for family days out. My moan is this: they both have black rechargeable batteries, but my original 4 Mpixel camera could go for a week on one charge; this one doesn't last a morning on one charge, which makes it virtually useless if you are going out for the day!

[Maggi Young]

 Is that not simply a dud battery you have there, Anthony?

[jomowi]

I am looking to replace my dated FinePix S7000 camera. I find the ‘bridge’ type of camera an ideal compromise between compact and DSLR for my needs. Initially I was looking into an upgrade of the same make, but it is rather bulky and because of the superior telephoto lens it weighs more than my current one. 

At the Stirling show  I was shown a recently acquired Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48 by Carol & Ian Bainbridge who seem quite pleased with it, but they are still assessing it.  Does anyone have this camera and would they recommend it?  Any other suggestions please? 

[Anthony Darby]

Is that not simply a dud battery you have there, Anthony?

I'll buy a spare and we'll see.