which lens to buy?

[vincenthau]

from the 3 lenses, and you can choose only ONE, what will be your choice?

A) VR 70-200

B) VR 24-120

C) VR 18-200

[glennyong]

70-200...... definately..

[MyNikon]

If given free, 70-200.

[vincenthau]

i ask this question because it seems to me that the 18-200 is the best now .....

[glennyong]

definately not. image quality is very important... VR is a luxury. but nevertheless, the 18-200 will be a lens that "extend" out like crazy.. which is something i dun like...

i prefer IF...

[vincenthau]

Originally Posted by glennyong definately not. image quality is very important... VR is a luxury. but nevertheless, the 18-200 will be a lens that "extend" out like crazy.. which is something i dun like... i prefer IF...

that is what I was thinking..... my VR 70-200 is already that long..... when I see the VR 18-200 is that short, I really doubt it can produce a good image.

[jamestan]

Originally Posted by vincenthau from the 3 lenses, and you can choose only ONE, what will be your choice? A) VR 70-200 B) VR 24-120 C) VR 18-200

All 3 lenses have different purposes. What will you use it for in the first place?

[Astin]

Originally Posted by vincenthau from the 3 lenses, and you can choose only ONE, what will be your choice? A) VR 70-200 B) VR 24-120 C) VR 18-200

From the spec, VR 18-200 is the best choice, with longest zoom range.
From test result, VR 70-200 is the best choice, with proven image result.

[vkashi]

18-200.

i know the image quality will not be as good as the 70-200 by any stretch of imagination, but i sorely need a wide angle VR for my shooting needs. i take a lot of indoor shots without tripod (not allowed) and i need a wide angle VR. if there was a 15-30VR i would go for it.

i know some would say that i can go for fast lenses like f1.8, but DOF is the culprit there.

[Artosoft]

Originally Posted by vkashi 18-200. i know the image quality will not be as good as the 70-200 by any stretch of imagination, but i sorely need a wide angle VR for my shooting needs. i take a lot of indoor shots without tripod (not allowed) and i need a wide angle VR. if there was a 15-30VR i would go for it. i know some would say that i can go for fast lenses like f1.8, but DOF is the culprit there.

Am I missed something? AFAIK, nobody know the quality of 18-200mm VR2 yet.

Wide angle VR . I think wide angle is still ok to handheld if you increase ASA (say to 800) for indoor. Or put flashlight.

Regards,
Arto.

[vkashi]

Originally Posted by Artosoft Wide angle VR . I think wide angle is still ok to handheld if you increase ASA (say to 800) for indoor. Or put flashlight.

when i visited europe a few years back, about 300 odd slides out of the 1000 were of church/palace/architecture interiors where tripods are not allowed. flash is useless for larger spaces. using asa400, i was still getting f3.6@1/2 sec! the same happened in istanbul/vietnam when i was using a dc where i bumped up to 800 (unimaginable noise) and yet was getting f2.8@1/15sec which was just about okay.

ideally i want to shoot at f5.6-8 (for greater DOF)@1/2 -1/4s handheld. i know that my needs are too specific and maybe not many people want this, but the 18-200VR seems to be a partial answer. i say partial because of course a 15-30VR would theoretically have better quality and a wider angle

[jsbn]

Originally Posted by vincenthau i ask this question because it seems to me that the 18-200 is the best now .....

New not necessarily good.

There are lotsa cases where old lens beat new lens with swanky technologies hands down.

[vincenthau]

Originally Posted by jamestan All 3 lenses have different purposes. What will you use it for in the first place?

General photo-taking and of course needed with good image quality

[ortega]

I'll pick option A

but it depends on what you like to shoot. sometimes buy and keep in the dry cabi.

[ortega]

Originally Posted by vincenthau General photo-taking and of course needed with good image quality

Nikon 28-70 f2.8 is a good lens with a good working range. and add a good 12-24 F4 to complete.

[litefoot]

All 3. If you have a budget to watch 70-200. If free, definitely all 3.

[jsbn]

Originally Posted by vincenthau General photo-taking and of course needed with good image quality

General phototaking? U can do with 18-200.

[jamestan]

Originally Posted by vincenthau General photo-taking and of course needed with good image quality

Then 24-120 for now. 18-200 maybe when it comes out. I really do not know how the 18-200 compares to the 24-120, so I better keep my mouth shut, in case kenna flamed.

24-120 is general purpose lens. If $$ and weight no issue, then 17-55 + 70-200VR lor... Maybe throw in the 12-24 f/4 too?

[roti_prata]

18-200vr after all is a high magnification lens, 11.1x lei.

inheritly, its clearity will be less thn the 70-200 for sure and maybe on par even worse thn the 24-120.

hmm but its got vr2, claiming a 4stop advantage..

[robotech]

Originally Posted by vkashi when i visited europe a few years back, about 300 odd slides out of the 1000 were of church/palace/architecture interiors where tripods are not allowed. flash is useless for larger spaces. using asa400, i was still getting f3.6@1/2 sec! the same happened in istanbul/vietnam when i was using a dc where i bumped up to 800 (unimaginable noise) and yet was getting f2.8@1/15sec which was just about okay. ideally i want to shoot at f5.6-8 (for greater DOF)@1/2 -1/4s handheld. i know that my needs are too specific and maybe not many people want this, but the 18-200VR seems to be a partial answer. i say partial because of course a 15-30VR would theoretically have better quality and a wider angle

I agree with your church/palace problem....definetly the 18-200 VR will do u good for those.
I've been to many churches in Europe too....Some of them are lit only with the sunlight coming in from the stained glass.

vincenthau : what lense u have now? If u got the kit 18-70 from D70, Go 70-200VR. Other then that, i think the 24-120 works well for now. Still dunno how the 18-200 will perform.