yes it is old,

however, 70-300 vr - 77mm filter ?

new lens.

Nikon sneaked this one in on us.

No and evidently either did jimphotos :( thats what happens I guess when you've been around these parts as long as we have haha and cry

kanuck said:
Nice call on the 16-85 brphotog its quite sharp I hear. Adding a 70-300mm VR would be a great combo with it. For the 18-200mm you get vignetting with a CPL filter over the UV filter just at the 18 end. Maybe try to purchase a slim CPL as admaz mentions or take off the UV when using the CPL. The lens cap fits over the filter naturally.

Do you realize how old this thread is? :D

Nice call on the 16-85 brphotog its quite sharp I hear. Adding a 70-300mm VR would be a great combo with it. For the 18-200mm you get vignetting with a CPL filter over the UV filter just at the 18 end. Maybe try to purchase a slim CPL as admaz mentions or take off the UV when using the CPL. The lens cap fits over the filter naturally.

I have the 18-200VR, on my D300, and use the 24-70F2.8 (77mm), 70-300VR (72mm) and 16-35VR (77mm) on my D700. However, I have a step up ring on the 18-200 so I can use my 77mm Singh-Ray filters on my 18-200, and even my 50mm 1.8 I only have ONE size filter - 77mm Heck, I even have the extension tube and 52 to 77 step up ring on my Pansonic Lumix LX5 point and shoot so I can use my filters. Never leave home with them (or ANY camera)

J

when maximal aperture was same, but a shorter focal-length lens is usually with larger AF-error showed up in the maximal aperture. (despite the Nikkor 35mm f1.4G and 35mm f2D were with better state, but general cases still exist of foregoing that.)

when the focal-length was same, but a larger aperture lens is usually with larger AF-error showed up in the maximal aperture.

well then, the larger aperture of wide-angle lens existed of more difficulties.

excepting the macro lens, why the many lenses are such cases? (a short distance target and the AF-error in maximal aperture)

In essence, the said two situations actually have a same intrinsic factor, the off-axis beams of light have the higher obliquities would easily lead to a larger spherical aberration, and thus the autofocus-error will be risen, (for the PD-AF in maximal aperture).

However, looks the PD-AF having the larger focus-error in maximal aperture if got large spherical aberration, but the optimum imaging aperture is still to be likely a good accuracy AF, when lens had having a not bad design. The optimum aperture's imaging performance needed to get a priority consideration, that is frequently saw things.

Commonly, the maximal aperture's spherical aberration correction had to make the necessary compromises. Most of the designs were impossible to take blindly pursued the spherical aberrations get a zero, which is also impossible thing in fact.

"Or is the issue that you haven't actually posted parts 2 and 3 yet?"

Yes, there is now posted the Part 1, -- " Lenses caused the AF-errors to be most of the common."
Part 2 and Part 3 are being writing drafts, it is needed time to get posted.

Reading your posts I see a essay on (what I would have titled) "Lens aberrations and their affect on apparent focus." Would you agree with this?

What I don't follow, and perhaps you could help me out, is what you mean by "amateurish test ABC".

EDIT: Or is the issue that you haven't actually posted parts 2 and 3 yet?

I wanted to post my article here, but the nikonrumors was always showing "Topic not found" if sent the topic.

now you can read form URL below,

about the AF-error and amateurish test ABC
http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?50@186.2HXkclPYnQm.197849@.eeb39dd/0

Thanks adamz I knew what I said wasn't quite right but as you can see I wasn't really sure why.

70-300 vr is quite good from 70 to 200, above 200 it gets a little soft. OTOH 18-200 DX is 27-300 on dx cameras (no matter if the lens was designed only for DX the focal range is always written according to 35mm film) and 70-300 is 105-450 on dx. As for filters, if You are not using slim versions (which has it's own caps) than Yes the original cap will fit without any problems once You mount filter on the lens.

The 70-300 Vr is a sharp lens, but the 18-200 is fairly soft. You'd be better off buying a 16-85 DX to supplement the focal range with the 70-300. Great combo, tack sharp, both have VR.

err ... 70-300 VR is similar to 105-450 FOV. I am not sure what you mean by "better" focal range as the 70-300 is sharper than the 18-200 for the ranges that over lap.

"I'm interested now is whether the 18-200mm can hold a filter and lens cap at the same time. "

I had one .. and yes it can, so as most of the lenses (- fisheyes and maybe some special purpose ones) :)

I understand all of this. I was just wondering the conversion on the 70-300. I know now, so all I'm interested now is whether the 18-200mm can hold a filter and lens cap at the same time.

The 18-200mm VR has the same Field of View as a 27-300mm lens on a full frame camera. If you put the 18-200mm on full frame camera (d700 or 35mm film camera) you will only get a partial image (black in the corners).

This should help you understand
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page4.asp

I know the 18-200 is a 72mm but I want to know if I can have a filter and a lens cap on at the same time.

wait you also asked about filters, the 18-200 uses a 72mm and the 70-300 uses a 67mm

as nau said, since the 70-300 is designed to also work on FX, the apparent FL changes on DX to something like 105-380. The 18-200 being made for DX is 18-200, for the most part. I think the crop factor still plays a role here but I've only used DX so I never really look into that much.

what makes lens to have higher range is the sensor so if u gone put 300 its gone be 380? (or so)

Will the lens cap fit on the 18-200mm lens if the lens has a filter?

UPDATED: I have figured out the first question (focal lengths). All I want to know about is if the 72mm Quantaray Pro-Digital UV Filter will also be able to hold the lens cap when it's on the lens.