| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2009 03:16:27 PM · #1 |
| I am looking at these 2 lenses. How much difference in the final shot is there between the 2. I would be using the lens for portraits. Aside from the wider aperture and bokeh is there much difference in sharpness? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:18:39 PM · #2 |
Yes. The 70-200 is the coolest. The 18-200 seems very plastic....
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 15:18:50.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:45:59 PM · #3 |
There are some lens review sites and I used to have a link to a very detailed one, but can't find it. It did confirm what I had noticed with my 18-200mm VR, that it goes noticeably soft at about 135mm. As a walkaround lens, I think it is great in general, but I am not sure it would be that great for portraits.
I have the 85mm f1.4 and it is super for portrait work.
I would love to have the 70-200 2.8 someday..... |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 04:22:58 PM · #4 |
I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8vr Dg If Ed, it is a wonderful lens,sharp,very sturdy, no regrets, would buy it again and again!
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 16:26:35. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 04:23:12 PM · #5 |
I have both of these lenses. The 18-200 is a great "vacation" lens -- I love to stick it on the camera on a trip, and not really worry about using much else.
But when it comes to serious work, the 70-200 gets called into duty. It's a heck of a lens. I wouldn't use the 18-200 for really important projects. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 04:24:28 PM · #6 |
Previously discussed here and here.
You're really looking at two different classes of lenses altogether.
Are you looking for a new lens strictly for portraiture? (i.e. what led you to consider these lenses in the first place, etc.)? Both are versatile within reason, but if you tell us more that what you want to accomplish, I think folks can give you more relevant info.
ETA - I own both also, and I completely agree with the general statements Alan made, above. Again, you're talking about two different classes of lenses. Deciding between them really involves what your real needs and expectations are.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 16:27:16. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 05:11:28 PM · #7 |
| I'm one more who is in agreement with the general thoughts in this thread. There is no comparison betweent he two. I have owned and used both and the 70-200 2.8 VR is by far a much better lens (and you pay for it) in terms of sharpness, color and speed. The 18-200 VR makes a great vacation lens but can not hold up for portrait photography. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:51:36 PM · #8 |
No comparison there dude!
If you want a good portrait lens, I can say with surity that a 50mm 1.8D prime (on FX. on DX, try 35mm 1.8) would perform better than the 18-200 VR.
Look at photozone's optical quality ratings for the lens:
18-200 VR : 2.5
50mm 1.8D : 3.5
70-200 VR : 4.5
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 20:51:43. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:51:53 PM · #9 |
| I kinda doubt the 70-200 has sharper, less distorted optics than a prime 50mm... But what do I know. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:05:50 PM · #10 |
The 70-200 is over twice the price of the 18-200. No sense comparing the two, but I'll try anyway:
(based on slrgear.com's tests)
Sharpness:
The 18-200mm suffers from uneven sharpness at all focal lengths. Unless you're always going to be shooting at or around f/8, you'll always have either bad corner sharpness or weirdly uneven sharpness throughout the frame, especially between 18 and 70mm.
Sharpness comparo @ 200mm:
The 18-200mm has worse sharpness at its minimum of f/5 than the 70-200mm at its minimum of f/2.8.
The 18-200mm has worse sharpness than the 70-200mm at equivalent apertures. In fact, the 18-200mm's sharpness at f/8 and f/11 is about the same as the 70-200mm's at f/16 and f/22, respectively.
There's no point in trying the 18-200mm at it's minimum aperture (max f/stop).
Sharpness comparo @ 70mm:
No contest. Even at at its minimum of 70mm, the 70-200mm destroys the 18-200mm in sharpness at all apertures except f/22, where they're about even.
Chromatic aberration:
The 18-200mm is better at 70mm, the 70-200mm is better at 200mm. The data points didn't match up in between, so here they are, simplified:
18-200mm @ 120mm, wide open = 70-200mm @ 105mm, stopped down (bad)
18-200mm @ 120mm, stopped down = 70-200mm @ 105mm, wide open (good)
Distortion:
The 18-200mm is all over the place. Except at a few focal lengths between 18 and 24mm, it's very high. Only at 200mm does it have the same amount of distortion as the 70-200mm.
Based on a win in sharpness, a win in distortion, and a tie in CA, I'd say get the 70-200mm. Sure, the 18-200mm is more versatile, but if you can afford the 70-200mm, get it instead.
If you really don't care about distortion and CA (I know, I know, they're "the most important." A little PS work goes a long way, though...), don't get either lens. Get the 16-85mm and the 70-300mm. Sure, the 70-300mm has more distortion and way more CA than the 70-200mm, but it's generally sharper at equal apertures. For the same price as the 70-200mm, you could get the 70-300mm, live with the CA and distortion and lack of f/2.8, and also get the AMAZING 16-85mm.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 23:11:30. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:19:21 AM · #11 |
16-85mm VR - amazing. Only not fast enough for low light.
70-300mm VR - good quality for price in 70-200mm range. Average above that.
50mm 1.8D - Need I say anything about this one? :-)
This is my arsenal. You spoke for all the enthusiastic Nikon amateurs out there.
Of course, if I could afford it, I would go for (my dream lenses)
17-55mm 2.8
70-200 2.8
50mm 1.4
But for now, the first three will do. Yes sir.
ETA: If I were you (the OP), I would get two lenses (16-85, 70-300) and pay more rather than getting 18-200. But thats just me. I know a friend who swears by the 18-200 because for us amateurs, distortion is fun too.
Originally posted by george917:
The 70-200 is over twice the price of the 18-200. No sense comparing the two, but I'll try anyway:
(based on slrgear.com's tests)
Sharpness:
The 18-200mm suffers from uneven sharpness at all focal lengths. Unless you're always going to be shooting at or around f/8, you'll always have either bad corner sharpness or weirdly uneven sharpness throughout the frame, especially between 18 and 70mm.
Sharpness comparo @ 200mm:
The 18-200mm has worse sharpness at its minimum of f/5 than the 70-200mm at its minimum of f/2.8.
The 18-200mm has worse sharpness than the 70-200mm at equivalent apertures. In fact, the 18-200mm's sharpness at f/8 and f/11 is about the same as the 70-200mm's at f/16 and f/22, respectively.
There's no point in trying the 18-200mm at it's minimum aperture (max f/stop).
Sharpness comparo @ 70mm:
No contest. Even at at its minimum of 70mm, the 70-200mm destroys the 18-200mm in sharpness at all apertures except f/22, where they're about even.
Chromatic aberration:
The 18-200mm is better at 70mm, the 70-200mm is better at 200mm. The data points didn't match up in between, so here they are, simplified:
18-200mm @ 120mm, wide open = 70-200mm @ 105mm, stopped down (bad)
18-200mm @ 120mm, stopped down = 70-200mm @ 105mm, wide open (good)
Distortion:
The 18-200mm is all over the place. Except at a few focal lengths between 18 and 24mm, it's very high. Only at 200mm does it have the same amount of distortion as the 70-200mm.
Based on a win in sharpness, a win in distortion, and a tie in CA, I'd say get the 70-200mm. Sure, the 18-200mm is more versatile, but if you can afford the 70-200mm, get it instead.
If you really don't care about distortion and CA (I know, I know, they're "the most important." A little PS work goes a long way, though...), don't get either lens. Get the 16-85mm and the 70-300mm. Sure, the 70-300mm has more distortion and way more CA than the 70-200mm, but it's generally sharper at equal apertures. For the same price as the 70-200mm, you could get the 70-300mm, live with the CA and distortion and lack of f/2.8, and also get the AMAZING 16-85mm. |
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 02:23:12. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 03:58:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Prash:
ETA: If I were you (the OP), I would get two lenses (16-85, 70-300) and pay more rather than getting 18-200. But thats just me. I know a friend who swears by the 18-200 because for us amateurs, distortion is fun too. |
Hey, stop stealing my recommendations! =P |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:01:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by george917:
Originally posted by Prash:
ETA: If I were you (the OP), I would get two lenses (16-85, 70-300) and pay more rather than getting 18-200. But thats just me. I know a friend who swears by the 18-200 because for us amateurs, distortion is fun too. |
Hey, stop stealing my recommendations! =P |
I am not stealing them. I already 'live' with them. I own the trio. Hah!
:0)
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 19:02:20. |
|
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: 09/11/2025 10:42:18 AM EDT.
