| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2007 11:41:13 AM · #1 |
I'm stuck between these two at the moment. Probably ordering tonight or tomorrow.
70-300
or
18-200
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 11:48:42 AM · #2 |
do you have something wide?
18-200 is a great walk around lens, I have the cheaper Sigma 18-200 that I bought used, it almost never comes off my camera!
70-300 (again I have the cheaper version) I can't remember when I used it last!
My opinion is based purely on the number of times I use it, not the quality - I am guessing they are both great quality lens.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:12:37 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by missinseattle:
I'm stuck between these two at the moment. Probably ordering tonight or tomorrow.
70-300
or
18-200 |
They're both receiving mixed reviews.....the people who don't want to spend $1000+ a lens all love them, the lens snobs and super-pros all hate 'em.
I just bought this Tamron 28-300 a couple weeks ago and I LOVE it!
It's hard to go wrong, it's about $400 new, and you won't have much trouble unloading it if you want something different. You might even try to find an outlet that has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee......then you can always upgrade from there if it doesn't suit.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:28:44 PM · #4 |
Another vote for the 18-200 here. Great general-purpose, lightweight and versatile lens. Slower, and the 5.6 hurts on the tele end, but either of those you're considering will suffer a little there.
A lot of folks go on and on about how much the VR helps with longer exposures, and that's true, but the important thing to remember is that VR only helps you there for *still* subjects. If your subject is moving, the longer exposure for the smaller aperature is going to hurt. Just something to keep in mind.
The 18-200 is great for daytime/outdoor, or other controlled-light situations. For low light, I take mine off in preference of my 50 1.8 or 70-200 2.8 VR. If you are considering saving up for something in the 70-200 range, the 70-200 2.8 VR is da booooooomb. That's a different class of lens entirely, though.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:37:12 PM · #5 |
Its not snobbery that would say to hold off and spend a bit more on the 70-200 2.8, its strictly quality. You absolutely get what you pay for. If you only want to spend $400, get a prime lens, you will get far better color quality, faster and better built lens. The two you are choosing from are fine, but they are limited.
The widest they go is f3.5-4ish, something around there. that means no low light shots w/o a tripod, difficulty stopping motion. Also, wide open these lenses will be soft. Both will be fine at f8+, but that severly limits your uses. Resell value on third party or less than top of the line lenses is not very good, figure on getting about 1/2 the retail value for it.
On the other hand, if you spent a bit more and bought the 70-200 f2.8, it would be useful in all situations, the color and contrast is significantly better and if you did decide to sell it, you would get around 80% of retail value not 50%.
From experience, i have had a Sigma 70-300 APO, a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Both lenses I found to be extremely limited and of poor quality. When I sold them I got nowhere near the price I paid.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:37:23 PM · #6 |
18-200 is a pretty good general purpose lens.
70-300 is a passable lens for shooting wildlife and sports in fairly bright light, but isn't very useful for much else. You'd definitely need a shorter lens for walking around.
Since I got it, my 18-200 has been on my camera at least half the time, definitely more than any other lens. On a recent trip, it's the only lens I took, and besides the usual travel stuff, I managed to get some surprisingly good macros and bird shots with it. On a lens this slow and this long, VR is definitely worth the money. I wouldn't be getting nearly the same results without the VR.
I had a 70-300 (non VR) for awhile and sold it, because I couldn't get a sharp picture at the long end. I replaced it with an 80-200 f/2.8, a 1.4x teleconverter, and a good tripod, and have been much happier.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 01:52:33 PM · #7 |
| The 18-200 is improbably versatile. Great walkabout lens is right. As usual, when things are too good to be true, it's because they aren't. The 18-200 falls short for wide aperture and maybe sharpness (if that's an empirical term). Once you've identified them, you can look to fill the gaps with your Christmas present wish list etc. :) |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 02:04:01 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by raish:
The 18-200 is improbably versatile. Great walkabout lens is right. As usual, when things are too good to be true, it's because they aren't. The 18-200 falls short for wide aperture and maybe sharpness (if that's an empirical term). Once you've identified them, you can look to fill the gaps with your Christmas present wish list etc. :) |
What he said...If I were starting with a single lens, I'd get the 18-200, then add more/better lenses over time as I found the need and got the money.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 02:22:56 PM · #9 |
Question is what do you already have and what are your needs. The 18- 200mm is a versitile one lens solution. The 70- 300mm will be lighter and sharper and give you a longer reach but will need to be used with another lens for more wide angle to normal range shots. Price is quite different too.
For myself, I purchsed my Nikon D80 with the 18- 135mm lens (smaller, a bit sharper, and lighter and of course cheaper than the 18- 200mm VR) and saved money to get the 70- 300mm VR to go with it. Given the kit lens discount I probably paid about the same money for both lenses as just getting the 18- 200mm would have cost me and I have both VR and a longer reach. I just have to take another lens with me. If I intend to only bring one lens, I go by the situation which would be better. I also have a Sigma 10- 20mm for my really wide angles.
The 70- 300mm VR is much better than the earlier non-VR versions. Photos from here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1419
Message edited by author 2007-11-01 14:25:03.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2007 02:36:42 PM · #10 |
It all depends on what you want...The 18-200 mm is unbeatable IMO. Overall, the lens can be used for many purposes. If you want to travel one day and do not want to bother with other lenses in your back bag, that's the one to pick! You will not take pictures as good as pictures taken with f/2.8 lenses, but it will be good enough for general purposes. The 18-200 is the perfect walk-around lens.
Here is a link you need to read:
18-200mm review
Note: There is also a cheaper 18-200 mm from Sigma, I will personally not recommend it! |
|
|
|
11/01/2007 03:19:42 PM · #11 |
Kim,
For the price of the 18-200 you can get both the Nikon VR 70-300 AND the Nikon 18-70. Also both use the same size filter threads and both are really good lenses optically. Like others have said you really do need a wide angle so I'd save the 60mm that you mentioned in the other thread or PM for later. Don't let the small price scare you off, the 18-70 is every bit as good or better than the 18-200 covering the same range.
P.S. A friend of mine is thinking about selling his 80-400 to me, and if he does my 70-300 might be available.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 04:45:39 AM EST.
