18-200 Vr

[Madelyn Westfall]

Joshthe focal length may overlap but that's all these lenses have in common. I also have the 18-200VR and love it but this lens is just night-and-day compared to the 70-200VR. The 18-200 range is teriffic but if I planned to shoot in the 70-200 range and/or in low light and/or shallow DOF was important, the 70-200 is a no brainer.

The only place you would really have any overlap might be something well lit where you are shooting f/8 or lower. Anything else, the 70-200 will blow away the 18-200. Different lenses for different purposes.

I use both of those lenses. The 18-200 is quite versatile, but cannot hold a candle to the 70-200/2.8 in that focal range. But then, it's not nearly as heavy or as expensive... and with one twist, you're at 18mm.

At 200mm, f/2.8 is quite a bit faster than f/5.6... and that applies to more than just the exposure. You're also going to get a much brighter viewfinder and more responsive autofocus with the lens hauling in all of that extra light. That the 70-200 is also a VR-stablized lens makes it all the more tasty in those situations.

But light performance aside... the image quality at those longer ranges is just steller, even wide open, on the spendier lens. Which it should be, at that price and size/weight, to be sure. If I know I'll be working at 70+mm, it's always the 70-200 for me, unless I truly can't function with the large lens in place for some reason. The 18-200 is my toss-it-in-the-car carry-around lens... but the 70-200 (and that same Sigma 10-20) are always in the bag.

In short: I really don't see the 70-200 as a lens that overlaps with the 18-200. They're meant for two very different roles. Mind you, I'm very pleased with the 18-200 when I used it within its naturally useful bounds, and with the right expectations in mind. It's marvelous piece of do-it-all engineering. But: once you've used the 70-200/2.8, your standards will be permanently changed.

Like Bruce & Matt I have both lenses. The 18-200VR is a versatile lens. I bought it for travel. But reality has hit me. As versatile as it is, I know that I'll probably travel with the 24-70 & buy a 70-300VR. In the long run the 18-200VR (though I have a super sharp copy) will rarely get some camera time from me.

As far the 70-200 goes, I think you've made a wise decision. As long as you got the budget, that lens should work like a dream (at least on DX). If you haven't used a pro grade nikkor yet, you would be pleasantly surprised by it.

I've owned both. I like the build of the 80-200, but my copy kept back focusing - - I could have sent it in for repair, but the lens was only weeks old & I expect a new lens to work. I would have had to wait a few weeks for a new 80-200, so I ended up trading up to the 70-200VR. Heavier & build is different. I still remember the build of the 80-200 as one I liked better. But I do love my 70-200VR.

On specialized assignments however, I always choose either the 18-70 (landscape/outdoors, sometimes in conjunction with a Tokina 11-16) or the 80-200 (sports/wildlife). Both lenses perform clearly better than the 18-200 on the wide resp. tele end, and the difference in IQ is readily apparent. I can even use a Tamron 1.5x converter with the 80-200 to gain additional reach, which would not be feasible with the 18-200.

While the 18-200 is the most versitile dx lens and works well, it has two weakness.

If you add the 35mm 1.8 you will get tremendous low light capabilities and a much brighter viewfinder in dark situations. the 35.mm is also a sharper lens at 35 than the 18-200. A lot of folks use a normal focal length lens for a lot of their shots. At $ 200.00 its a good buy for a very sharp low light lens.

The other area that the 18-200 doesn't cover is the very wide end. The 18mm is equal to 27 mm on full frame. If you really like to shoot wide, think about adding a 10-24 dx.

Those 3 lens will cover almost anything you may want to shoot.

After that, the only other areas you may want to cover are super telephoto and macro.

You shouldn't buy the 35mm primarily because of the image quality, but for its wide aperture that gives much more creative options, and, as said already, much better performance under low light. But the ability to play creatively with depth of field is not to be underestimated (though, of course Matt is right that in landscapes it does not matter that much since you're normally at f/8 thereabouts).

A second thing I like about primes is how they "force" you to think more about composition, the flexibility you sacrifice by not having zoom means you may become mor aware about your point of view, the framing, things like that. I helped me a lot in thinking better about how to frame a photo. Maybe just me, but something to consider.

The 10-24 is also a big pull because I would love to get that extra bit a angle that I used to have on an old Canon film camera I had years ago. That one is a little out of my price range at the moment but would certainly be something worth adding.

I am leaning towards the 35mm, principally due to the opportuny of playing more in low light situations and I can't really see anything else around that fits the bill... other than a really wide angle as mentioned.

If your (prime) use... (no pun intended; well, maybe I did intend)....If you're prime use is for landscapes, you will be disappointed...Just not wide enough to be a serious contender in landscape photography, may as well stick with the 18-200mm.

So-called "prime" lenses really don't have an edge in image quality over professional zooms any more. Often, it's actually the other way around. Twenty years ago this wasn't the case, but just as cameras have improved, so have lenses. The only reason I would suggest a 35mm f1.8 is if you frequently need a lens of that length for low light. You didn't mention that as a factor in your post. I tried that lens for a weekend, and returned it. I ended up with a Sigma 30mm f1.4 purchased used on eBay. It's much more impressive in both speed, build, and image quality. However, reading your second post I'm going to suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It's very fast, and very wide. No one else has anything quite like it. You won't see any image quality difference between your 18-200mm VR and a Nikon 35mm f1.8. The biggest difference is the 35mm will have the option of very shallow DOF and better performance in low light. It won't be very flexible though. If you feel you do need a lens for low light use, I'd highly recommend the Sigma 30mm f1.4 over the Nikon based on my own personal trial of both. If I had to choose the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 vs. the Sigma 30mm f1.4, I'd pick the Tokina every time. I love ultrawide! You need to put some more thought into this and analyze your images. Buying lenses willy nilly without thinking it through is a fast way to end up broke. Most of us here have been through that.

One factor against the Sigma is its weight/size/cost, which are 2x that of the Nikon. The bokeh generated by the Sigma is indeed better than the Nikon 35/1.8, which is pretty good, again, considering its size and cost.

Matt, I'd have to disagree with you here. The 35 is a much better lens than the 50 (I have both). Focal length is a personal thing but the 35 is much sharper wide open, is silent and still when focusing, and has much better bokeh. Not Sigma 30/1.4 quality bokeh but the 50 can be very nasty at times.

On top of that, JMO, the 35 is the perfect length for DX, since it's normal of course. The 50 is a little too long for everyday use and Craig would most likely put it down after awhile and use the wider lengths of his 18-200.

I'm just not so sure that you can flat out say that Nikon lenses are always better than the pro level 3rd party lenses. Not any more, anyway. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Sigma etc. have hired high level designers/engineers from Nikon, Canon etc. As for the Sigma 30mm f1.4 I mentioned above, I paid $270 for mine on eBay. The price of the Nikon 35mm f1.8 is about $200. I thought paying $70 more for a better and faster pro lens was a good deal. Also note that I earlier said that Nikon PRO zooms are generally sharper/better than single focal lenses now. Both the 35mm f1.8 and 18-200mm VR are considered "consumer" lenses.

So-called "prime" lenses really don't have an edge in image quality over professional zooms any more. Often, it's actually the other way around. Twenty years ago this wasn't the case, but just as cameras have improved, so have lenses. The only reason I would suggest a 35mm f1.8 is if you frequently need a lens of that length for low light.

Kent, I agree with you. Looking at my own shooting style, I tend to use good 2.8 zoom glass more often than the primes, but when I shoot in low licht situations, and my ISO is cranked up high, then my 1.8 primes are invaluable.

I do not want to throw fire on a potential Nikon vs Sigma/3rd party debate here, but I see that on this forum, we (myself very much included) tend to look for the very best quality in our lenses. However, when is a lens "good enough"? Not everyone needs a 24-70 for their shooting styles. And especially not if you look at the neded quality/price ratio.

Well said Bob. People - including me sometimes - tend to berate this lens more than it deserves. But still, this is the best DX one lens solution ever made - a little engineering miracle. When I want really high IQ, I carry 3 primes and a pro zoom. When I want flexibility and a light package, with more than acceptable IQ, I carry this lens - in its league, it's a winner.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

Chris JL edited this topic ages ago.

Pity the other thread on this lense (well it turned out to be about this lense once a key and critical question was asked) is not full of useful and accruate stuff like this one, instead it is full of complete inaccuracies, and falsehoods and an OP now making the incorrect adjustments, for the incorrect reasons, in the incorrect shooting scenario. Don't you just love the internet......sighs

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

fishandsnap edited this topic ages ago.

3a8082e126