DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 18-200 vs 18-300mm lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/14/2014 11:10:37 AM · #1
Is there really a huge difference in having a 18-200 vs a 18-300 mm lens?

The prices on them are a few hundred $$ difference. I am currently saving for a lens over an upgrade for a body right now because I am really hating to change my lenses at the last minute when I find a capture and I have lost a few captures because of just changing lenses... its frustrating to me..

I have been looking at Nikkor Lenses 18-300 because I have a 70-300 sigma and LOVE it and have used the full infinity (300mm

Then they have the Nikkor VR lenses 18-200mm but really, do you guys that have these lenses really notice a 100mm difference on things? How do you know which one to get or which one is better.. I am reading the reviews all the time and consistently checking these out, the only thing that I really notice is the price difference..

Thoughts on lens uses for these ?
 06/14/2014 11:40:52 AM · #2
I have the 18-200 (it was my first lens for my Nikon D80 and the reason I switched to Nikon from Canon, who didn't have such a superzoom at the time). It's a great lens, IMHO. Stopped down, I've taken some incredibly sharp pics with mine. The weight and flexibility of the focal lengths is superb.

When I upgraded to fullframe, I would not have done so without the 28-300 as an option (indeed I had already purchased it).

Now to your question...do you need 300mm on an APS-C camera? That's 450mm focal length on Nikon. You already have said you have a 300mm lens and like to use 300mm. So I'd say Yes, for you.

So it comes down to weight and size. The 18-200 is a pretty reasonable size and weight. I can carry my D7100 and it all day, in a small bag. The 28-300 is much heavier, and less comfortable to carry around and shoot with.

I don't have any of the 18-300's. But the original 18-300 was similar to the 28-300 lens in size and weight, so I'd say it's not going to be an easy lens as a walkaround. The new lighter version of that lens might (though I believe it's more of a f-stop tradeoff).

Of course, either 18-300 will be easier than carrying both the 18-200 and the 70-300.

Note that typically, the greater the zoom range, the greater the tradeoff in image quality. However, I've found the Nikon superzooms to be excellent.
06/14/2014 12:05:59 PM · #3
Originally posted by jgirl57:
do you guys that have these lenses really notice a 100mm difference on things?
Thoughts on lens uses for these ?


the difference is minimal. you can test this yourself with your current lens. On your 70-300, take a photo at 200mm, then one at 300mm and compare them. you can see the difference in the view finder as well.
An 18-200 will be a great lens to leave on the camera, gives you great versatility with out having to change lenses.
06/14/2014 12:10:37 PM · #4
That was my other concern with the weight of the lenses...
I would be using that as a primary lens all the time and I do carry my camera with me everywhere I go.. kinda like a baby blanket to me lolol, so weight would have a lot to do with things as well.

Good to know the sharpness is just as good too. It was why I was bouncing back and forth between the 200 and 300
06/14/2014 12:11:48 PM · #5
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by jgirl57:
do you guys that have these lenses really notice a 100mm difference on things?
Thoughts on lens uses for these ?


the difference is minimal. you can test this yourself with your current lens. On your 70-300, take a photo at 200mm, then one at 300mm and compare them. you can see the difference in the view finder as well.
An 18-200 will be a great lens to leave on the camera, gives you great versatility with out having to change lenses.


I will try that, thank you for the suggestion
 06/14/2014 02:35:40 PM · #6
Neil pretty much covered it all, Julie. Even now, though crippled and thus unable keep up with the D7100, my 18-200mm can still be useful in the studio. In its pre-polo ball days, 98% of the time it was the only lens I used for shooting everything. And do I mean, EVERYTHING. All manner of studio work, portraits, wildlife, weddings, birds, architecture, macros, food, street photography, rodeo, dressage and h/j shows...the list goes on. It is such a versatile lens and still around $700 in price, so well worth it imnsho.

I can't comment knowledegably about the 18-300, but I do know that when I go to shoot Heavy Shot this year - even though I will be shooting with a much faster lens, the 70-200 f2.8 - I'm going to have to remember that I no longer have that 18mm end available to me anymore :-(

Anyway best to go try out both; you may want to consider trying to rent them if you can. There is now a VRII version of the 18-200 out there, I don't know the tag on it. But my previously-enjoyed ebay purchase, the VRI, never let me down.
 06/14/2014 09:29:38 PM · #7
awesome thanks guys!!!

The thing with photography is that it is NOT a cheap hobby... I haven't even spent this much money on my guitars and supplies

Wish it was LOL!
 06/14/2014 10:28:18 PM · #8
I also have the 28-300 and love it. It's a LOT sharper and distorts far less than I would have expected from such a zoom range. I took this image with it from a plane, and it's cropped to a tiny section of the image.

The thing I'd look for in the longer zoom is distortion at the edges, and lack of focus. I'd take your camera to the store and test the lens on your camera. Shoot the same subject zoomed all the way in and all the way out and examine the edges of the image to see what sort of losses you're dealing with.
 06/14/2014 10:57:36 PM · #9
FWIW - Tamron just came out with a 16mm - 300mm APS-C lens (f/3.5 - 6.3) IS lens that is available in Nikon mount (Canon, too). $629

I'm really liking it so far, and I'm enjoying the extra 30 mm over my previous 18-270mm (not to mention the 16mm on the other end). It seems like this new lens is a good step up in clarity.

06/30/2014 02:40:44 PM · #10
Originally posted by tanguera:
I also have the 28-300 and love it. It's a LOT sharper and distorts far less than I would have expected from such a zoom range. I took this image with it from a plane, and it's cropped to a tiny section of the image.

The thing I'd look for in the longer zoom is distortion at the edges, and lack of focus. I'd take your camera to the store and test the lens on your camera. Shoot the same subject zoomed all the way in and all the way out and examine the edges of the image to see what sort of losses you're dealing with.


What brand do you own?
 06/30/2014 06:58:29 PM · #11
Originally posted by jgirl57:
What brand do you own?

She's a Nikon gal.
 06/30/2014 07:19:21 PM · #12
My most used lense is 18-135. A perfect walkabout (or in my case, rideabout) range, though a little short for aircraft and wildlife. I have a 70-300 for those times when I expect to want a little more reach. 200 mm sounds like a good range unless you expect to want the extra reach regularly.
 06/30/2014 08:40:27 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jgirl57:
What brand do you own?

She's a Nikon gal.


What he said. The 28-300 would be a perfect lens but it's too slow for low light situations.
 07/02/2014 10:57:35 AM · #14
I am looking for an all around lens that I won't have to consistently change..
I will have to go through my photos and find out what my normal range I normally shoot..

I can keep my sigma 70-300 but I was really hoping for one lens in one but if it doesn't do good in low light, I wouldn't want to spend all that money and then have it go to waste.. I need something that does low light too because I love long exposure night shooting now

thanks for that extra tidbit of info!

Message edited by author 2014-07-02 10:58:13.
 07/02/2014 11:45:38 AM · #15
Originally posted by jgirl57:
I need something that does low light too because I love long exposure night shooting now



that shouldn't affect your decision at all.
 07/02/2014 11:59:36 AM · #16
When I bought my D7000 I bought the Nikor 18-105mmmlens in stead of the 18-200 because it was much cheaper. I still regret that choice. That 18-200 is quite fast and deliver. Good images, whereas the 18-105 images where much softer.
Having that Sigma 70-300 I you should go for the 18-200, it gives you a great range with only 2 lenses
 07/02/2014 12:49:18 PM · #17
Originally posted by jgirl57:
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by jgirl57:
do you guys that have these lenses really notice a 100mm difference on things?
Thoughts on lens uses for these ?


the difference is minimal. you can test this yourself with your current lens. On your 70-300, take a photo at 200mm, then one at 300mm and compare them. you can see the difference in the view finder as well.
An 18-200 will be a great lens to leave on the camera, gives you great versatility with out having to change lenses.


I will try that, thank you for the suggestion


A lot of people swear that IQ wise, it is better to crop an image than to use a converter. Couldn't you crop from 200mm and still have a very usable photo? How big do you print?

Tim
 07/07/2014 10:30:58 PM · #18
since you are looking for all rounder lens 18-300 should be a good choice.
there is used unit selling for 799.90 at //www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B008B14VAK/ref=olp_page_next?ie=UTF8&startIndex=30

Edit:
as for low light situation, get a tripod as a solution

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 22:32:59.
 07/07/2014 10:34:13 PM · #19
I just bought a used 18-300, it's pretty great.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:31:52 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:31:52 PM EDT.