New Lenses

[Soulburner]

This just in:

http://www.tamron.com/assets/vs2/images/tamron-lenses.jpg
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp)

This lens is 90% of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-55mm-2-8G-ED-IF-Nikkor/dp/B000144I2Q) for 35% of the price. It is also smaller and much lighter. I got the new version with the built-in quiet AF motor and AF/MF switch along with a few other minor tweaks. I would recommend this version, especially for D40 owners. The original version used your camera's screw-drive AF. It was fast, but somewhat loud. This also made it incompatible with D40 cameras.

Reviews I found most noteworthy:
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/tamron_vs_sigma_28&page=all
http://www.sassmannshausen.eu/lenses_af_zoom.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html
http://shashinki.com/blog/2008/03/04/tamron-sp-17-50mm-f28-a16n-ii-short-review/

And to cover those longer distances...

http://www.nikonusa.com/static/images/logos/logo_nikon.gif
AF-S VR Zoom- NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f/4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html)

This one doesn't need much introduction...it's already earned it's reputation around here.

Out of the box I immediately notice how darn good the Tamron feels. It is very solid with a nice rubbery grip. It really makes my D80 feel like a different camera - in a good way. The 70-300 is huge but plastic so the weight isn't a problem. Not as good of a feel as the Tamron but still very good overall - similar to the 18-200 VR.

These two lenses cover most situations. My other lens is the Nikkor 35mm f/2 prime which is excellent and my indoor lens of choice. I hope to add an 85mm prime or even the 105mm micro some day, but these will more than do for now. I hope to get to play with them soon ;)

[[XC] 2long4u]

My Nikon 55-200 VR just came in. I like it.
I also shot the nikon 18-70. I really like that lens. The AF is so fast on it.
What do you think about the 18-70?

[Soulburner]

The 18-70 is a good lens, similar build to the 70-300. It doesn't have VR though, which makes it hard to justify over the 18-55 VR now.

[[XC] 2long4u]

I haven't shot the 18-55 VR but if it is the same build as the regular 18-55 I don't see that as an option. I need to borrow one for a couple of days to see if I want one. If I like it, it will replace my 18-55.
What are you doing up?

[Soulburner]

The 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR are similar as the 18-70 / 70-300 are similar.

I do like the VR and wish my Tamron had it - but what it lacks is a focus ring and distance scale compared to the others. Minor gripes though.

Me, I work early...

[MaxxxRacer]

very nice. I really wanted to get a fast lens to fill in the 17/18-50/70 range and this one looks nice. the close 10 inch focus distance is awesome too. How much did you pick it up for? I see adorama has it for 420. I think this will be my next lens.

I will be getting an SB-600 this week. I will let you know how that goes. gonna be shooting a birthday party for my GF's mom.

[[XC] 2long4u]

I wonder if they will make a 18-70 VR?

[MaxxxRacer]

It seems to me that none of the 3rd party lens manufactures are making VR/IS lenses. It probably has to due with the cost of development being very high for the VR unit. Alternatively it could be taht most people only buy 3rd party lenses due to the lower purchase price. If you intoroduce VR to tamron or sigma lenses, they will have to sell for alot more money due to the cost of manufacturing and development. These VR lenses would be relatively similarly priced to the Nikon/Canon/Sony lenses and therefore not worth it. If the price is close, then you might as well get the OEM lens.

On a side note, the 17-55 F2.8 Nikon actaully is a crap lens. The 18-55 F5.6 VR is actually considerably sharper and has better color reproduction than the pro lens as well as focusing closer and being 1/5 the weight. Futhermore the 17-55 F2.8 costs 1200 dollars whereas this Tamron is only 420. that said, Nikon should be introducting a 17-55 VR lens soon as well as a 24-X VR lens for full frame.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Isn't VR just one lens in a gyro?

[metro.cl]

I just got my 18-200 VR and a SB-600

This is how my D70 looks now :)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Metr0/Accesorios%20Nikon%20D70/D70enchulada.jpg
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Metr0/Accesorios%20Nikon%20D70/D70enchuladaII.jpg

I love the lens is awsome, the flash is not such a great adition yet.

I dont have many pics yet just created my flickr.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/2455840726_1dffd825b0_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/2455011545_f28aef5ea0_b.jpg

[Soulburner]

very nice. I really wanted to get a fast lens to fill in the 17/18-50/70 range and this one looks nice. the close 10 inch focus distance is awesome too. How much did you pick it up for? I see adorama has it for 420. I think this will be my next lens.
$419 at Beachcamera. They had both versions so I was able to choose the one I wanted. The two versions of this lens are described in the Shashinki link. Your other option for 3rd party is the Sigma 18-50 2.8 but honestly it is not as good. I researched these two for at least two weeks before knowing almost everything I needed to know, and I can say with certainty I made the right choice. The two weaknesses of the Tamron are not-so-fast focus (newer version with built-in motor) and no VR. Still, for the price you certainly get more than what you pay for and you can't have it all, so no major gripes here.

I will be getting an SB-600 this week. I will let you know how that goes. gonna be shooting a birthday party for my GF's mom.
I forgot to mention I got an SB-600 too. It's amazing how much my indoor pictures improved right out of the box - it really does almost all of the guess work for you. Outdoor pictures will benefit just as much with fill flash. It's really a much, much better investment than getting a new lens, IMO. Basically if you had to decide between two lenses, where one was $180 more, get the cheaper one and pick up a flash instead.

It seems to me that none of the 3rd party lens manufactures are making VR/IS lenses. It probably has to due with the cost of development being very high for the VR unit. Alternatively it could be taht most people only buy 3rd party lenses due to the lower purchase price. If you intoroduce VR to tamron or sigma lenses, they will have to sell for alot more money due to the cost of manufacturing and development. These VR lenses would be relatively similarly priced to the Nikon/Canon/Sony lenses and therefore not worth it. If the price is close, then you might as well get the OEM lens.
Sigma so far is the only one, with their "OS" lenses. They don't have any for Nikon though, as far as I know its Canon only.

On a side note, the 17-55 F2.8 Nikon actaully is a crap lens. The 18-55 F5.6 VR is actually considerably sharper and has better color reproduction than the pro lens as well as focusing closer and being 1/5 the weight. Futhermore the 17-55 F2.8 costs 1200 dollars whereas this Tamron is only 420.
I don't know about that. The 17-55 2.8 is considered to be very good, but not worth the asking price to many people. Just have a look here (http://chrisross.smugmug.com/) if you have any doubts about this lens. Most of those are using a Nikon D200 + 17-55 2.8.

I just got my 18-200 VR and a SB-600
Awesome. Just know the limitations of the lens. I had it for a short time, and the Field Curvature was strong enough in the 35-55mm range to drive me nuts. It did take great pictures otherwise, sharp enough in the center and sharp enough in the corners when stopped down to satisfy most people. Of course being from Nikon the color and contrast are top notch, and the VRII is excellent. Also nice are the distance scale for focus and the manual focus ring that doesn't turn on its own.

I love the lens is awsome, the flash is not such a great adition yet.
Oh it will be. Once you learn what it can do, there is no going back :up:

[[XC] 2long4u]

How did you do the landscapes with the stars? It looks like a very long shutter time, but how did the colors of the rocks look right? Were these shot at night?

[Soulburner]

Those aren't mine. I wish!

Those are using exposure times of a minute or more, sometimes up to 10. Some DSLRs have a "bulb" shutter speed that basically is infinite until you tell it to stop.

The most impressive shots of his are in Death Valley and Red Rocks to name a couple...just amazing.