| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2007 09:59:10 AM · #1 |
I recently got some money for my birthday, and i decided to get a new lens for my camera. I have a Nikon D70s with an 18-70 lens from the original kit. I am considering either getting a 70-300 lens as my second lens, or selling my existing one, and upgrading it to a 18-200 VR lens.
I understand that the price difference is a pretty drastic in these two cases, but what would i benefit from most?
I love shooting action, and this winter, i plan to spend some time on the slopes shooting snowboarders, and skiers, so i would benefit from a better zoom, but i would benefit from the image stabilization of the VR lens, an not have to worry about constantly swapping lenses on the camera.
Thanks for your advice. |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:04:36 AM · #2 |
I would recommend the 18-200mm VR - it is a great lens and one you can use for so much. The VR works really nicely to steady the image for those shots at 200mm. I have the cheap 70-300mm (pseudo kit lens) and really am not especially happy with the quality of images from it.
The 18-200mm allows you to zoom pretty well and the active VR feature helps keep the image from bouncing too much when panning. Good luck in your choice! |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:05:42 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
I would recommend the 18-200mm VR ... |
I would too |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:11:14 AM · #4 |
| I third the 18-200mm VR option. Definitely my favourite lens (I dropped mine and it is currently out of commission). I've been struggling a lot since I dropped the good one! |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:14:17 AM · #5 |
| I'd have to back the 18-200 as well... just knowing what the 70-300 is like... |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:15:46 AM · #6 |
Which version of the 70-300 are you looking at ? I would most likely still take the 18-200 as a first choice, unless you have a need for that additional range.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:37:47 AM · #7 |
Wow, thanks for a quick reply everyone, i am starting to lean heavily towards the VR lens.
Bugzeye, it's hard to say what kind of range i am loo
king at. How much closer can i get to subject with 300, rather then 200? |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 10:53:46 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 11:00:04 AM · #9 |
rswank, thank you very much
i've been looking for exactly something like that. While it is a pretty good difference, i don't think it's going to be worth it for me. I am probably getting the VR lens. I'll be swinging my my local Ritz camera tonight. |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 11:13:12 AM · #10 |
| Another, albeit much more expensive, option is the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. I know this is about double your current budget, costing about $900, but it is an amazing lens! The boke, color and build quality just doesn't get much better and, even though not AF-s, it focus about almost as fast. The VR on the previous two is very nice, but the f/2.8 will stop action, and at 200mm is two stops faster than both the other lenses (almost negating the VR's correction while allowing for high shutter speeds). The tripod collar is a nice thing to have too. Again, i realize it is much much more than you were planning on spending, I just thought i'd toss out another opinion. Good luck on your decision! |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 11:22:45 AM · #11 |
Thanks for the extra info, but yeah, $900 is more then i want to spend.
I am barely able to convince myself to spend $700+ on the 18-200 VR lens, and that's only because i have birthday money to spend, and i will sell my current lens, since i really won't have need for it. I am still at somewhat early stages of learning photography, and having only one lens would make things easier for me. |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 11:40:13 AM · #12 |
| If you just need a tele in addition to your 18-70mm lense,you might want to consider the 180mm prime lense. It's the same price than the 18-200mm, but is 2.8, focuses very fast, extremly sharp from corner to corner and light! I love it. I owned the 70-300mm before. When I compare a picture taken at 300mm with a cropped one from the 180mm prime, the latter is much sharper! |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 11:56:48 AM · #13 |
When I had my Fuji S5 pro I had the 70-300 VR and it was sharper by far than the 18-200VR. I feel that lens is just toom much in a single lens and pays the price. Great walk around carefree lens but not a great performer IMHO. I have played with both and went with the 70-300VR it is a great sharp bit of glass and at 200 beats the 18-200 by miles.
The 18-200 is smaller, lighter, more range
The 70-300 is sharper bit bigger, bit heavier, cheaper.
You already have the 18-70 that is a great sharp nice lens. it needs a companion.. the 70-300VR |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 12:02:38 PM · #14 |
Marac has a good point. The 70-300VR is a really nice alternative to the 70-300 kit lens.
I found it for less than 500 at B&H on line this morning.
70-300VR Film/DSLR from B&H
Message edited by author 2007-10-22 12:02:53. |
|
|
|
10/22/2007 12:04:14 PM · #15 |
There is the Sigma 18-200 OS. I have one and love it!
$ 464.95 - Canon mount
$ 479.95 - Nikon mount
Sigma4less
Message edited by author 2007-10-22 12:07:06.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2007 12:27:08 PM · #16 |
I've been very happy with the Nikon 18-200 VR. The VR works quite well, which is a real plus. In addition, I really like the convenience of having both wide angle and telephoto in one lens. Everything in my portfolio was taken with the 18-200, if you want to see some examples.
Don't have any knowledge about the 70-300. |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 09:23:21 AM · #17 |
| Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up going with a 70-300VR lens. The person in Penn Camera talked me into it, and for a good reason. I already have the 18-70, i might as well get something that will allow to me extend my possible range. Also, i can use my current filters on the new lens, the 18-200 would mean spending more money on filters. And of course, i saved over $200 on the purchase. |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 09:29:18 AM · #18 |
I had the 18-200 VR and sold it to get my 70-200 2.8 non-VR.
My only problem with VR was that when I really needed the VR in low light situations, it didn't give me what I needed.
For example: When taking pictures at my childrens school play, I needed slow shutter in order to use stage lighting (not flash). I set the VR and still had to use about 1/15 to 1/60. The light was fine but the movement on the stage was blurred.
Keep in mind that VR will hold your "hand" steady but with slow shutter you will still get motion blur.
I love the 70-200 f2.8 though!
KS |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 01:46:57 PM · #19 |
i am not expecting miracles, because i think i understand the limitations of technology. I don't do a lot of photography indoors, and if i shoot outside in the dark, i put my camera on the tripod.
The most use this lens is going to get will be outdoors, and hopefully on the slopes taking snowboarding pictures. I can't wait to try some panning shots too. |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 04:20:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I had the 18-200 VR and sold it to get my 70-200 2.8 non-VR.
My only problem with VR was that when I really needed the VR in low light situations, it didn't give me what I needed.
For example: When taking pictures at my childrens school play, I needed slow shutter in order to use stage lighting (not flash). I set the VR and still had to use about 1/15 to 1/60. The light was fine but the movement on the stage was blurred.
Keep in mind that VR will hold your "hand" steady but with slow shutter you will still get motion blur.
I love the 70-200 f2.8 though!
KS |
You mean the 80-200 f/2.8 :)
Yes, this is a superb lens. VR can be handy in some situations but this does not help at all when you are shooting a dynamic object.
The Nikon 18-200 F/3.5-5.6 is an excellent choice for the ratio price/quality (IMO unbeatable). The lens is not really fast, the bokeh is limited, the built quality is OK, but not outstandind. Be aware that the lens has some limitations, but it is an excellent walk-around lens. I strongly recommend it when you do not want to bother with other lenses for short trips. |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 04:30:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by papagei:
There is the Sigma 18-200 OS. I have one and love it!
$ 464.95 - Canon mount
$ 479.95 - Nikon mount
Sigma4less |
Cool I was hoping to hear something from someone about this lens. It may be my next lens.....thx, Ingrid! |
|
|
|
10/23/2007 05:16:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by PlayWithFire:
Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up going with a 70-300VR lens. The person in Penn Camera talked me into it, and for a good reason. I already have the 18-70, i might as well get something that will allow to me extend my possible range. Also, i can use my current filters on the new lens, the 18-200 would mean spending more money on filters. And of course, i saved over $200 on the purchase. |
I can assure you that you will be pleased with your purchase. I used to own that very beast and you will not be disappointed with it. Fast AF and sharp and a nice 450mm on a DSLR crop body of the D70s. Let us know how you get along with it. |
|
