18-200mm Lens for Nikon

andiphoto

andiphoto

Knock-Off Nigel
Messages
2,054
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
HI,

i dont have the best knowledge on lenses etc.

So could some one tell me the actual differences in these lenses and why they is a £400 difference in price.

Sorry if there are obvious differences but im still learning about all the equipment at the moment.

the two lenses are found here
 
In short the Nikon 18-200 VR is sposed to be the dogs danglies...

Uncle Ken will give you a run down Kens review 18-200 VR

edit: he's a bit like marmite ;) either you hate him or like him :lol:
 
one has vr and one doesn't, ones from the oem and the other is from a second party :)

i rate the nikon highly and you can get quite sharp copies, it's a bloody useful lens but you need to know the limitations of it, covering 18mm-200mm and expecting the same iq of a 24-70 2.8 (which most reviewers seem to require) is just unfeasible imho

that said if they did an fx version of it i'd get another :)

i've no experience of the tamrons though
 
Uncle Ken said:
If you're on a budget I'd suggest the cheap and excellent 18-55mm instead. If you need to go longer, add the 70-300mm G. You'll lose convenience, but the pair combined probably weighs less then the 18-200mm VR and costs only a fraction as much.
Click to expand...

i have both of theses lenses and i think the 18-200 would be more usefull..

if your skint would you think the tamrom would be suffice till im earning big bucks to afford the other?
 
i'd look at the sigma os version over the tamron, 200mm @ f6.3 with no stabilisation with cheap glass isn't the biggest recipe for success imho :)

what's it going to be used for?
 
more than likely just candids and general shooting... nothing in particular just my messing about with my family.

till i get better at photography ;) lol
 
You could go for the earlier 18-200mm VR as the VRII is a lot dearer.... Just a thought
 
I can thoroughly recommend the Sigma 18-200 OS version - new or second hand - good IQ (as good as the Nikon) and excellent build (better then the Nikon).

Cons - noisy OS/focus (Nikon is as noisy)
Not as fast a lens as the Nikon.
 
I had the Sigma 18-200 when I had my D300 and, though I've never used the Nikon, the IQ was better than I thought and frankly never had a problem with the quality it produced.

The only issue I did have was the corners, they were real bad, but who puts someones eyeball in the extreme bottom corner of a pic, eh?

All in all for the money you save I would go for the Sigma.

The problem with 18-200's isnt so much the IQ, it's the lack of aperture choice. In the middle ground, like 70-135mm, I yearned to shoot at 2.8/3.5, but was usually stuck at 5.6.
 
Oh one last thing, definately get a stabilised (VR or OS) version.

The slow aperture at 200mm means you're going to need it, unless you have a D3S and can shoot at ISO two-brazillion all day.

Without OS you'll need to be shooting at 1/160th or higher at 200mm, whereas with OS I could shoot reliably at 1/30th at 200mm. When you're stuck at f/5.6 or f/6.3, that is critical!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top