nikon 70-300mm v nikon 18-200mmvr mk1/2

iwols

iwols

Messages
918
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all just looking at swapping two of my lens, my nikon 18-70mm and my nikon 70-300mm non vr for the nikon 18-200mm ,which has vr but comes in mk1 and mk2,i managed to take my 70-300mm to manchester airport at the weekend and the pics were ok(will post later )but there was something not bang on (might be me).just wondering if the quality on the 18-200 is any better than my other 2 lens(especially the 70-300),and is there much difference quality wise with the 18-200mm mk1 and mk2 lens,any comments appreciated as always thanks
 
imo/e the 18-70 is a little better than either of the 18-200's in the overlapping range. I didn't like the 18-200's on my D7000. Can't speak for the non vr 70-300, but the VR version is better than the 18-200 where they overlap. I doubt you'd gain much other than VR ...
 
Thanks is there anything better than the 70-300 that would cover this area,and how good/bad are the 70-300 thanks
 
Last edited:
iwols said:
Thanks is there anything better than the 70-300 that would cover this area,and how good/bad are the 70-300 thanks
Click to expand...
The 70-300mm VR is very nice but can get a little softer towards the longer end (still good enough though). By all accounts the latest Tamron 70-300mm VC is as good if not better than the nikkor. After that you are looking at the 70-200's - either the f2.8's or the new f4. Sigma and Tamron also do 70-200's too which are all decent, the Nikkors are superb though (again imo ;)).
 
Thanks but are they a worthwhile upgrade from my 70-300 Nikon lens does anyone think
 
iwols said:
Thanks but are they a worthwhile upgrade from my 70-300 Nikon lens does anyone think
Click to expand...

We had a similar thread a while back so it's worth your while doing a little search.

Anyway. It's not an upgrade, it's a sidestep.

The convenience is a huge step up and the quality is only slightly lower.

It's a great lens for those times where you don't want to change lenses but still very good IQ.
 
iwols said:
Thanks but are they a worthwhile upgrade from my 70-300 Nikon lens does anyone think
Click to expand...
I can't answer re the 70-300 non vr to 70-300 vr as I haven't used the non vr. As for the 70-200's then yes, they are a big step up in performance and IQ imo/e, but they also cost an awful lot more too.
 
looking at something like Nikon 18-200mm VR II DX Lens with a Maximum aperture f/3.5-5.6 (not f2.8 or f4)against my 70-300mm, these are 2 of the pics i mean with my 70-300mm lens ,they are ok but just missing something quality wise thanks


1 by iwols, on Flickr


2 by iwols, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I have the 70-300vr and its great - certainly sharp enough for me although I could perhaps do with a little more reach now
 
You won't get better quality in the 18-200...you will get better convenience.

If it's optimum sharpness you're going for, as mentioned above, really you're looking at something like a 70-200.

Have you thought the sigma 70-200 OS? At f4/5.6 it will be very sharp and easily supply you with the difference in sharpness you're after.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
You won't get better quality in the 18-200...you will get better convenience.

If it's optimum sharpness you're going for, as mentioned above, really you're looking at something like a 70-200.

Have you thought the sigma 70-200 OS? At f4/5.6 it will be very sharp and easily supply you with the difference in sharpness you're after.
Click to expand...

No I hadn't is this a better lens than my Nikon 70-300mm,anyone tried these two thanks
 
Phil Young said:
You won't get better quality in the 18-200...you will get better convenience.

If it's optimum sharpness you're going for, as mentioned above, really you're looking at something like a 70-200.

Have you thought the sigma 70-200 OS? At f4/5.6 it will be very sharp and easily supply you with the difference in sharpness you're after.
Click to expand...

Wow are these the ones at 6-7 hundred
 
Phil Young said:
You won't get better quality in the 18-200...you will get better convenience.

If it's optimum sharpness you're going for, as mentioned above, really you're looking at something like a 70-200.

Have you thought the sigma 70-200 OS? At f4/5.6 it will be very sharp and easily supply you with the difference in sharpness you're after.
Click to expand...

Wow are these the ones at 6-7 hundred I can't find one at f4/5.6
 
I can't see what camera you have but if it has a focus motor consider the Nikon 80-200 2.8. This is an old fashioned looking lens but wonderful quality yet only maybe 250-300 secondhand. It hasn't got vr but optically it's as good as the 70-200s which cost the earth.
 
tim_uk said:
I can't see what camera you have but if it has a focus motor consider the Nikon 80-200 2.8. This is an old fashioned looking lens but wonderful quality yet only maybe 250-300 secondhand. It hasn't got vr but optically it's as good as the 70-200s which cost the earth.
Click to expand...

Hi its a d90
 
D90 will autofocus fine with the 80-200

i don't have any plane photos but this is one from the zoo last week:


tiger by tim-uk, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
That's the thing, unless you're wanting VR (which in my opinion, for a telephoto of that range on a crop sensor is well worth paying for) you won't get much better quality than you have for much less...
Click to expand...

Thanks didn't realise I would have to go to the 700 pound mark for a better lens than my 70-300mm lens
 
Just had a quick look through your flickr...I would first tackle technique and expectations followed by PP technique before actually buying a lens as now I don't think the reason you are disappointed falls with the glass...

I would be looking to get your lens at it's best aperture & learn a few sharpening techniques in PP (or at least adjust in camera).
 
Phil Young said:
Just had a quick look through your flickr...I would first tackle technique and expectations followed by PP technique before actually buying a lens as now I don't think the reason you are disappointed falls with the glass...

I would be looking to get your lens at it's best aperture & learn a few sharpening techniques in PP (or at least adjust in camera).
Click to expand...
thanks phil you could be right:) but how did you get that conclusion,what would i have done different with the two plane pics please thanks
 
Last edited:
iwols said:
thanks phil you could be right:) but how did you get that conclusion,what would i have done different with the two plane pics please thanks
Click to expand...

In the greatest respect...

Sometimes you get a feel for ones skill level through their photos and what they say, it's just the conclusion that I've come to that you could benefit from a little more before going to make big purchases.

I think the combination you have is quite capable of producing some really great, sharp shots... I just get the feeling your time would be better invested than money right now.

Apologies if you feel it's an unfair conclusion.

What would have have done for the plane shot?

Framed it correctly, shot at f8-11 if I could, make sure the focus was in the centre and then spend some time editing it. To be honest though, you haven't provided Great examples as they are smooth objects with little to test the lens on.
 
Last edited:
thanks phil,no offence taken whatsoever,youve just summed me up in a 1 paragraph:),the problem i have is i am trying to shoot in anything but auto,after being at this game for years.I like to think im switched on but photography just doesnt sink in ive read and read but when i get my camera in my hands all logic thinking goes out the window and i find myself taking a pic then adjusting the shutter speed to make the pic brighter or darker.you say you would shoot at f8-11 if I could,i have to think why(the more i read the worse i get) thanks for any further comments,this is what these forums are about:)
 
As has been said, the 18-200 will be the convenience improvement but will lose you 100mm at the long end. The 70-300 VR is significantly better than the older non VR version and a great partner to the very good (punches well over its price point) 18-70. A more significant upgrade would be a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter but that's a little over your current budget...
 
Nod said:
As has been said, the 18-200 will be the convenience improvement but will lose you 100mm at the long end. The 70-300 VR is significantly better than the older non VR version and a great partner to the very good (punches well over its price point) 18-70. A more significant upgrade would be a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter but that's a little over your current budget...
Click to expand...

thanks nod ,putting my lack of experience aside(i agree exactly what your saying phil),is there much difference between the mk1 and mk2 version of the 70-300 vr versions thanks
 
To the best of my knowledge there is only one version of the 70-300mm VR ... there are two versions of the 70-200mm VR though and there are differences if that is what you meant.

I do know that the 70-300mm VR is an excellent lens, and for the iq it is capable of is extremely good value too.

EDIT: You may have been asking about the difference between the two 18-200's too ... sorry not enough coffee yet - optically there is none.
 
Last edited:
Have a look at Photozone for a review of differences between VR and non VR 70/300 - most noticeable is how the VR is rather better at 300mm.

I use an 18/200 VR II for street photography and the 200mm end for portraits/details. Centre performance close-up is quite decent and I love the versatility of the zoom range. It's a lens with good central but indifferent edge sharpness, especially from 100mm onwards.

My 70/300 VR is a much better lens at 200 though - it is edge-to edge sharp for landscapes and distance work, almost throughout the whole of its range. My problem is that it doesn't focus close enough for what I want, the 18/200 does.

Suspect that you won't be working as close to your aircraft as I am to my dancers!

Also that you need your best performance in the 200-300mm range where the VR 70/300 is king.
 
Bargain price @ £200.

This lens is far better than the DX equivalents.

Riz
 
I would say that if you want a better lens then wither the Nikon or Tamron with VR would be a worthwhile upgrade and won't cost that much if you get a 2nd hand bargain.

However, as Phil has said, technique and expectations are where I think the issues probably are. For example, the shots you have posted are taken in challenging conditions - you'll never get something white to 'pop' against a white sky, overcast conditions aren't your friend here...

The Virgin plane looks sharp enough and it looks like it was taxiing so not going very fast so you wouldn't need a particularly fast shutter speed. The Thomas Cook plane is landing and you have some motion blur so you either need to up the shutter speed or improve your panning technique.
 
Nawty said:
I would say that if you want a better lens then wither the Nikon or Tamron with VR would be a worthwhile upgrade and won't cost that much if you get a 2nd hand bargain.

However, as Phil has said, technique and expectations are where I think the issues probably are. For example, the shots you have posted are taken in challenging conditions - you'll never get something white to 'pop' against a white sky, overcast conditions aren't your friend here...

The Virgin plane looks sharp enough and it looks like it was taxiing so not going very fast so you wouldn't need a particularly fast shutter speed. The Thomas Cook plane is landing and you have some motion blur so you either need to up the shutter speed or improve your panning technique.
Click to expand...

thanks for the comments 2 questions does vr work on things that are moving and what shutter speed would you suggest exif for this was f13...1/200...70mm thanks
 
Vr basically elimates camera shake so its helpful for stationaryish subjects at slow shutter speeds. It's useful for telephotos -you never see vr on standard or wide angle primes - where handholding a 300mm on a dx camera needs about 1/500 shutter speed or faster to avoid camera shake and blurry pics.
 
hi all thanks for all comments and suggestions much appreciated as ever,but i thought i would bring this thread to a close by saying i eventually took the plunge and purchased the Tamron 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens,which i must say even with my limited knowledge im very impressed with at this early stage,heres a pic i took earlier, i know its a different subject/conditions with a lot going on but im pleased with the outcome,the contrast it delivers seems to be a lot better to satrt with,only time will tell once again thanks


april robin by iwols, on Flickr
 
Glad you made a purchase and that's a lovely shot - really nice pose, lovely light and nice and sharp too!

Yes VR/VC won't stop subject movement but I think you'll find it very helpful.
 
Nawty said:
Glad you made a purchase and that's a lovely shot - really nice pose, lovely light and nice and sharp too!

Yes VR/VC won't stop subject movement but I think you'll find it very helpful.
Click to expand...

thanks nawty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top