18-200mm - How?

sophos9

sophos9

Messages
884
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a 55-200mm VR Nikor and a kit 18-55mm (which will be sold soon)

Would you replace with a 18-55mm VR Nikor or shop the lot for a 18-200mm VR?

I'm after quality rather than convenience...
 
There's no optical difference between an 18-55 and the VR version. I doubt the 18-200 VR will offer you any perceptible increase in IQ either...
 
What are you wanting to cover, these hyperzooms aren't that greatest, they promise alot and deliver very little, hardly surprising with an 11x zoom ratio.
It really down to your budget and what type of photography you want to cover
I'm after quality rather than convenience...
Click to expand...
, the 18-200mm will get you convenience of 1 lens not leaving your camera, but nowhere near the quality unless the light conditions work in your favour. Personally I would look at 2 lenses, but your budget will rule that.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
There's no optical difference between an 18-55 and the VR version. I doubt the 18-200 VR will offer you any perceptible increase in IQ either...
Click to expand...

Cool, was after the VR version as the difference between the 55-200 with/without VR was pretty impressive...

pete.rush said:
What are you wanting to cover, these hyperzooms aren't that greatest, they promise alot and deliver very little, hardly surprising with an 11x zoom ratio.
It really down to your budget and what type of photography you want to cover , the 18-200mm will get you convenience of 1 lens not leaving your camera, but nowhere near the quality unless the light conditions work in your favour. Personally I would look at 2 lenses, but your budget will rule that.
Click to expand...

I already have a 55-200mm VR so all I need is a 18-55mm VR so I have the range, can pick these up for £100.

I'm shooting derelict buildings at the minute however need to cover portrait and hopefully motorsport - in a amateur form - Would need a very compelling reason to change to a 18-200mm VR.

What is the range of the two lenses you would look at?
 
sophos9 said:
I'm shooting derelict buildings at the minute however need to cover portrait and hopefully motorsport - in a amateur form - Would need a very compelling reason to change to a 18-200mm VR.

What is the range of the two lenses you would look at?
Click to expand...

Your 18-55mm on a 1.5x crop will work for your cityscapes, your 55-200mm for portraits, but if your looking to cover motorsport, you'll require a longer lens than 200mm. Something like a 70-300mm on a budget. The reason, most circuits have large fences to protect the crowds, and you'll need 300mm, maybe more too punch beyond these barriers to capture the action. I was using a 300mm prime with 1.4x TC and still not getting right the way through the fencing at my last race at certain locations on the track. I really depends on your budget for a sports lens.
 
sophos9 said:
Cool, was after the VR version as the difference between the 55-200 with/without VR was pretty impressive...
Click to expand...

Any difference you perceive is down to the VR, not any optical improvement


I already have a 55-200mm VR so all I need is a 18-55mm VR so I have the range, can pick these up for £100.

I'm shooting derelict buildings at the minute however need to cover portrait and hopefully motorsport - in a amateur form - Would need a very compelling reason to change to a 18-200mm VR.

What is the range of the two lenses you would look at?
Click to expand...

None of these lenses are really ideal for either portrait or motorsport use, I think you would be really disappointed in the 18-200 for the money.

Without going to 2.8 glass and all that would entail I would suggest having a think about replacing your 55-200 VR with a 70-300 VR, which would benefit you in a number of ways.

Firstly, you'd have the obvious extra reach for motorsport use (plus better build quality and VR II as opposed to the VR I of the 55-200) and secondly, the 70-300mm also makes for a good portrait lens too :)
 
Am surprised at those who say the 18-200 VR lacks quality. I've had not complaints on the IQ of anything i've posted with it here (and nearly everything I do is with that lens). And it is still very good in low light if attached to a good body e.g. D90 / D300. Granted it's not a 70-200 2.8 but then it's less than half the price of course. The 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR are both good lenses, but only worth the switch if you really want the convenience of having the right lens attached most of the time.
 
Defiance said:
Am surprised at those who say the 18-200 VR lacks quality. I've had not complaints on the IQ of anything i've posted with it here (and nearly everything I do is with that lens). And it is still very good in low light if attached to a good body e.g. D90 / D300. Granted it's not a 70-200 2.8 but then it's less than half the price of course. The 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR are both good lenses, but only worth the switch if you really want the convenience of having the right lens attached most of the time.
Click to expand...

I always thought the same when I had my 18-200 but as soon as I changed to multiple 2.8 lenses the difference was very apparent, I found especially in the sharpness falloff at the edges. There is also a linky somewhere to a testing site that does sharpness maps of many lenses and various apertures and it did back it up, can't find it *** soz.

But for convenience the 18-200 is still a cracking bit of kit which did me well for many a thousands of frames.
 
Thanks again for all the info... lots of food for thought however conclusive that I will not go for the 18-200mm.

Shopping list at the minute:
Nikor 35mm F1.8 Prime
Nikor 18-55mm VR

Will see how motorsport etc pans out and take a new view then :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top