| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2009 02:31:16 PM · #1 |
| This is my next lense of choice...I already have 18-70mm, 50 1.8mm and a 85mm 1.8, I shoot alot of models...is this a good NEXT choice for me...oh by the way I shoot with a d80 instead of a d50 thanks! |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 02:38:10 PM · #2 |
I love mine! It was my only lens for about a year. It is not fast, so when you get into lower light you will notice. It is a little soft around 135mm, but not unusable there.
I just got a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.4. When I am out and about, handheld, and the lighting falls (twilight, etc.) I can switch out to one of those and keep shooting. You might find you can sell your 18-70 once you get comfortable with the 18-200 :-) |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 02:38:32 PM · #3 |
| What problem are you trying to solve? |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 02:55:11 PM · #4 |
| I would sell the 18-70mm, then purchase the nikon 17-55 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 they are both much better lenses than the 18-200 and your range is pretty well covered with faster glass. |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 03:21:07 PM · #5 |
My first reaction is that the 18-200 is a fun walking around lens, but for people photography, it's a little slow. Since you already have the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8, look at the lenses  Bugzeye mentioned, or something like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, if you want something cheaper that's still high quality glass. |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 03:29:39 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I would sell the 18-70mm, then purchase the nikon 17-55 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 they are both much better lenses than the 18-200 and your range is pretty well covered with faster glass. |
Good glass but you would need to sell at least ten 18-70mm lenses to pay for this :)
I agree with Ann, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a legend. I don`t use my 18-200 for portraits just the cheap 50mm 1.8.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2009 03:31:51 PM · #7 |
| I like mine best as a "vacation lens." It was great to take it on vacation and just keep it attached almost the entire trip. I took a couple shots with my 10-20, but other than that, I used the 18-200. For more professional stuff I stick with my 17-55, etc. |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 03:39:03 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I like mine best as a "vacation lens." It was great to take it on vacation and just keep it attached almost the entire trip. I took a couple shots with my 10-20, but other than that, I used the 18-200. For more professional stuff I stick with my 17-55, etc. |
Exactly what I use my 18-200 for, too. I have it semi-permanently attached to a D60, and use it as a point and shoot substitute. |
|
|
|
01/12/2009 05:28:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I like mine best as a "vacation lens." It was great to take it on vacation and just keep it attached almost the entire trip. I took a couple shots with my 10-20, but other than that, I used the 18-200. For more professional stuff I stick with my 17-55, etc. |
Exactly what I use my 18-200 for, too. I have it semi-permanently attached to a D60, and use it as a point and shoot substitute. |
A third vote as a vacation lens. I carry it and a 50mm 1.8 (for the occasional portrait) while on vacation. Other than that I don't keep it on my camera much. So if that is what you are looking for fine, if not then let us know what you want it to accomplish and we might be able to give a few ideas. |
|
|
|
01/13/2009 01:35:59 PM · #10 |
| Since I shoot alot of studio portraits, do you guys recommend the Tameron 28-70 2.8 than the 18-200mm?? My budget is around 600 dollars!! Please help me build my arsenal!!! lol |
|
|
|
01/13/2009 01:40:20 PM · #11 |
Yes. I would say go with the Tamron It is a faster lens and will give you more options in lower light situations.
Originally posted by Dlove:
Since I shoot alot of studio portraits, do you guys recommend the Tameron 28-70 2.8 than the 18-200mm?? My budget is around 600 dollars!! Please help me build my arsenal!!! lol |
|
|
|
|
01/13/2009 02:02:53 PM · #12 |
| Thanks alot, I will go with the Tamron 28-75, amazon has it for under 500 dollars!!! Thanks everyone!! |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 05:20:18 AM · #13 |
What's the Tamron going to give you over the 18-70?
If you're doing studio shots where you have the lighting control, the 18-70 is a fine lens. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 11:02:42 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's the Tamron going to give you over the 18-70?
If you're doing studio shots where you have the lighting control, the 18-70 is a fine lens. |
Having had both...
The Tamron is noticeably sharper, has better bokeh, has less CA (okay, no CA that I can see, even in desperate situations), and he has the option of shallower DOF, especially at the long end.
If he needs 18mm at the wide end, then the 18-70 is the obvious choice. But for shooting models, the Tamron will bow the Nikon away. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 11:19:25 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's the Tamron going to give you over the 18-70?
If you're doing studio shots where you have the lighting control, the 18-70 is a fine lens. |
Originally posted by Ann:
Having had both...
The Tamron is noticeably sharper, has better bokeh, has less CA (okay, no CA that I can see, even in desperate situations), and he has the option of shallower DOF, especially at the long end.
If he needs 18mm at the wide end, then the 18-70 is the obvious choice. But for shooting models, the Tamron will bow the Nikon away. |
Okay....
I just recently got the 18-200 and having a 28-200 Tamron before that, I was blown away by how much better the Nikon lens is.
I still have my 18-70, and I have gotten some really nice stuff with that lens.
Unless that 28-75 is MUCH better than that 28-300 I had, I'd go with a Nikon lens.
Over the years I've screwed around with third party lenses and I always end up back to spending the couple extra dollars for the good stuff.....and never regretting it.
Just my $0.02 USD......YMMV.....8>) |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 11:20:24 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Dlove:
Thanks alot, I will go with the Tamron 28-75, amazon has it for under 500 dollars!!! Thanks everyone!! |
Under $500? B&H sells it for $339. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 11:38:39 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Dlove:
Thanks alot, I will go with the Tamron 28-75, amazon has it for under 500 dollars!!! Thanks everyone!! |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Under $500? B&H sells it for $339. |
Even Ritz has it for $399, and they notoriously run a little higher than typical "street price".
I usually buy from them once the pricing is competitive as there are Ritz stores here in town and I can make 'em sell things to me at the Web price if I print out the listing. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 11:52:11 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Unless that 28-75 is MUCH better than that 28-300 I had, I'd go with a Nikon lens. |
A fast, short range f/2.8 lens is not comparable to an inexpensive 11x zoom. They're in completely different leagues. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 12:08:03 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Unless that 28-75 is MUCH better than that 28-300 I had, I'd go with a Nikon lens.
|
I've never tried the 28-300, but the 28-75 is more comparable to the Nikon 24-70 or 28-70. Yes, the Nikons are better, but they aren't *that much* better (mostly the Nikons focus faster), and I could buy 3 of the Tamrons for the price of the Nikon.
I have the 18-200VR, and the Tamron 28-75's image quality is considerably better than the 18-200VR. Build quality of both lenses is similar.
edit: need to learn the rules of grammar.
Message edited by author 2009-01-19 12:09:38. |
|
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: 08/15/2025 05:39:40 AM EDT.
