NinjaMonkey said:
I went with Olympus for a lot of reasons.
Since I haven't really used any of Olympus' digital cameras, not going to comment on those one way or the other, but just am going to say that, yes, Oly does make nice lenses. One of my favorite film cameras was the IS-3 DLx. It was a "bridge" camera not unlike what we see today in many digital prosumer cameras. I really loved that camera and it did give me some very nice results. I've still got it, actually, but it hasn't had a roll of film in it for at least three or four years. One day I had a look, realized that oops, there was still a roll of Fujifilm 400 or something in it, never exposed, but took that out, as it has been at least eight or nine years since I've shot with film.
Anyway, yes, Olympus does do a nice job with lenses....
Chip NoVaMac said:
The 18-200VR is a truly great travel lens.
Isn't this just the greatest walkaround/travel/all-purpose lens? I think it has so much appeal because it can fulfill so many purposes for many people. For those who are coming right from a P&S to a DSLR but who aren't quite sure about this whole interchangeable lens thing or who don't have a lot of money to immediately plunk down for various lenses it fits the bill. For those who have other lenses but who don't necessarily want to carry a heavy bag full of gear for a trip or even a walk around the neighborhood, this lens fits the bill.... I am just so pleased with the results that I've been getting with mine. Yes, an image is not going to be the same with that lens as when I slip a faster or a longer lens on, but it sure does cover a lot of territory! For travel, IMO it cannot be beat.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Though I have sights on a great Nikkor 35/2.0 for really low light.
I've seen some really fantastic results that people have gotten with that lens.
Chip NoVaMac said:
I would be very tempted as new purchaser to go with any Nikon DSLR with the 18-200VR for "general" shooting. I say "general", for while the 18-200VR is a sharp lens, it is not like the 17-55/2.8 or the 70-200VR/2.8; or the Canon equals.
I have to second this! While I love my 18-200 VR, it definitely is not a substitute for either the 17-55 or the 70-200. On another forum I saw a post where someone was considering selling off their 70-200 f/2.8 VR because they now had the 18-200 VR. Um..... I guess they aren't really cued in to the fact that while the 18-200 VR is a wonderful lens, it is nowhere near as fast as the 70-200! I spent some time last week doing some shooting around my neighborhood with the 18-200 VR and while it does really well, there's no way that it can take the place of the much faster 70-200 VR under certain shooting conditions.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Add your choice of an ultra-wide zoom (my choice is the Tokina 12-24), a 35 or 50 f/2.0, and for adventure the a semi fish-eye (hope that Canon offers one soon for the 1.6x factor). As a person that loves wide angle, these are my choices. Otherwise if you are more telephoto, a 200 to 400~500 zoom lens would be of more use than the semi fish-eye.
Yeah, one of these days after I've finished sorting out some financial stuff I need to handle and evaluate and compare the 80-400 and the 200-400 lenses.... I'm really fine as far as the wide-angle and fast lenses for shooting in low light end of the scale but I want to have something that reaches beyond 200mm in order to shoot the local wildlife/wildfowl around here.... From what I understand, while the 200-400 is an outstanding lens, it also is a bit heavy, so I'm concerned about that vis-a-vis trying to wrestle one of those on to the tripod.... I really prefer hand-holding and shooting without a tripod.
That 10.5 fisheye would be a lot of fun and maybe one of these years after I've built up my "must-have" lens collection, I'll have one, but right now my priority is focused on lenses with which I can do a lot of shooting under various conditions, either wide-angle, low-light or telephoto....