What lens or lenses do you have now and what are looking to achieve with your new purchase?
I had an 18-200 vr1. Didn't really like it, found it soft, very soft at the long end. The vr2 didn't change anything optically afaik, but did add a lock to stop the lens extending when pointing downwards.
Of the 18 to something, the 18-70 i have used i would consider the best.
I went to the tamron 17-50. Much sharper, 2.8, but may not have the range you need....
Thanks for reply Phil. I did hear that the 18-200 was a bit soft. I have the 18-70 which is very good.
Jack of all trades lens.
You heard wrong.
Doesn't take much searching online to conclude it is in fact, stupidly sharp.
What will you be using it for mainly?
General walkabout lens really. The 70-300 is a bit on the slow side. So only difference in vr1&vr11 Is zoom lock.?
Nonono.
Of course that's not the ONLY difference!!
...The second version has a gold ring
Nonono.
Of course that's not the ONLY difference!!
...The second version has a gold ring
Thanks for reply mick. I only have 18-70 3.5 -5.6 and 70-300 but that's the now vr one. Looking to upgrade that as well. Looking for more sharpness than convenience. I've got 2 bodies so not changing lenses to often. The 18-70 is a good lens and I get good results from that. The 70-300 is a bit of s clunker tho but pics are pretty good from that to. I was looking for something good in midrange but can't afford to go to 2.8 just yet. Wife says no chance. 😩
Your going to be very disappointed going to an 18-200 from those.
Your going to be very disappointed going to an 18-200 from those.
My post should have read NON VR VERSION on the 70-300 I think it would be an improvement on that one.
Just to give the 18-200 a fair chance because I think people that haven't owned it will assume is is a compromise in IQ...
Here is my 105mm wide open (crop).
Here is the 18-200mm at close focus of 50cm and at 200mm wide open (this would be the worst it will perform in theory)
Taken from:
Distortion at 18mm wide open f3.5:
Completely goes away when stopped down to F8 (as seen below) and is easily fixable in PP.
Impressed Phil. Thanks for that. Do you have or used the 70-300vr and if so how would the 2 compare excluding extra reach obviously.
:bang: the 18-200 is most definitely not stupidly sharp. :bang:
I borrowed it from my brother once.
It's got faster AF albeit not too noticeable in good light...
They are about the same for sharpness.
They both have VR and manual overide.
They both have good build quality.
I wouldn't trade the 100mm which isn't much, for the extra 52mm you get on the wider end.
The 70-300 is not a walkabout lens. It's a telephoto lens. When I have the 18-200 I use all of it's capabilities. With a maximum reproduction of 1:3 it is very useful for flowers and smaller animals etc. The 70-300 can't touch that.
The 18-200mm is a lens that is good at everything and only has a small compromise in most areas.
Sorry Phil but you are wrong on this one the 70-300vr is sharper than the 18-200.
Noticeably?
What is your experience of the 18-200mm?
Have you owned one Ryan?
Used one, not owned one. Does it matter?
Let be honest here, this is kit lens performance of 18-55 55-200 in one lens. Actually the 55-200 is prob sharper. This lens shows its shortcomings at high res hence the massive hike in used ones post D7000
I agree with you for a change I would regard the 18-55vr and the 55-200vr as a better option than the 18-200. The o.p though has an 18-70 which is better the 18-55 so the 70-300vr is a really good option in terms of the focal length it will cover along with the o.p's 18-70.
We still don't know what experience you two both have of the lens???
Phil are you bonkers comparing the 18-200 sharpness to a 105 macro????? What planet are you on?
I have used it a fair bit mate its okay but the 70-300vr is a lot better as you would expect.