(18-200 VR) v.s. (18-55 VR + 55-200 VR)

[xiaotaizi]

so many lens comparing thread... so which do you prefer?

18-200 VR?
or
18-55 VR + 55-200 VR + enough left over for a prime (28mm f2.8??)

[cteckwee]

If you are going for travel, then you should choose 18-200, otherwise, just get option 2.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by xiaotaizi so many lens comparing thread... so which do you prefer? 18-200 VR? or 18-55 VR + 55-200 VR + enough left over for a prime (28mm f2.8??)

18-200 because I'll be ready all the time. Don't need to change lens.

[daydreamz]

why not 17-50/55 2.8 + 80-200 2.8!?? a much better combo if u ask me and moreover you get fixed 2.8 IQ too...my personal preference.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by daydreamz why not 17-50/55 2.8 + 80-200 2.8!?? a much better combo if u ask me and moreover you get fixed 2.8 IQ too...my personal preference.

I think that combi is a bit too heavy for travel.

[xiaotaizi]

Originally Posted by daydreamz why not 17-50/55 2.8 + 80-200 2.8!?? a much better combo if u ask me and moreover you get fixed 2.8 IQ too...my personal preference.

because the cost of these two lens is in another league altogether already. 17-55 around 2k already. 80-200 1.5k.. i think.

personally i'll go for option 2. lol.

[F2000]

The 18-200VR has VR II which is better than both 18-55VR and 55-200VR. In terms of picture quality, not a huge difference. But you will save time in changing lens.

[RichardSeah]

My preference: 18-70 and 70-300.

I have been told that 18-70 is better than either 18-55 or 18-135 and the price (as well as size of lens) is not in killer league, unlike the 17-55 f2.8.

70-300 too, is said to be a better lens than 55-200, better in terms of image quality and, of course, gives longer reach.

This combination is, I feel, a good compromise between the cheap and the expensive. Of course if lens size and money no problem, sure the f2.8 lenses are better.

To me, having two lenses instead of one kiasu 18-200 everything can do lens is not that much of a hassel. Sure, might miss a shot now and then, but hey, that's life... gives you interesting stories to tell about "the one that got away".

It is only when you have to carry around 4 or 5 or 6 lenses instead of 1 or 2 that I consider too troublesome.

[KTKTKT]

I would go for 18-70 & D70 in order to travel light during holiday .. (thats the most my wife allow me to bring) ..

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by KTKTKT I would go for 18-70 & D70 in order to travel light during holiday .. (thats the most my wife allow me to bring) ..

Did that before the 18-200 was out but when I started using the 18-200, I hardly touch the 18-70 anymore.

[RichardSeah]

Originally Posted by KTKTKT I would go for 18-70 & D70 in order to travel light during holiday .. (thats the most my wife allow me to bring) ..

Alternatively... don't bring wife on holiday, hee hee

[F2000]

18-70 does not have VR. Maybe when the new lens is out 16-85VR + 70-300VR will be a better combination

[CTN]

Originally Posted by F2000 The 18-200VR has VR II which is better than both 18-55VR and 55-200VR. In terms of picture quality, not a huge difference. But you will save time in changing lens.

I have had 18-55 + 55-200 before. Both sold off liao
I am still keeping the 18-200VR. Sharpness is about the same, but contrast & colour is a few notches better than the above combo any time.
I had the 18-70 + 70-300 combo. Sold off the telezoom liao, still have the 18-70 but may sell it off. Keeping it just to shoot the odd birthday, luncheon 2-3 times a year, AF is faster than the 18-200.

I will take the 18-200mm VR anyday, for convenience and image quality

[yummyz]

but 18-200 vr costs 1.2k i'm now trying out my kit lens 18-55 and 55-200 vr..... but too bad no money

[daydreamz]

still prefer my earlier suggestion, if cost is an issue Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens. Add to that the 80-200 2.8 (nikon) and you can cap everything under $1.6k

To travel i'd carry the 17-50 2.8 and a wide 12-24 tokina or sigma 10-20 etc....feel that i can easily sacrifice the telephoto on my travel....hardly any shots i need to zoom so close into.

[marcdn]

my travel kit that i thought long and hard over is nikon d80 with tokina 12-24, 35f2 prime and 55-200vr. i realised when i came back that the 12-24 was on my camera 60-70% of the time, i really am glad i brought it along. the 55-200 was indispensible when i shot flowers and butterflies as well as people and the 35 trained me during walkabouts in terms of framing. plus it was a good lightweight option in the evening. all this was paired with an sb-400.

[sanith]

Of course for ease of use, 18-200, but if you want better pictures, 18-70 + 55-200, you might even consider 18-70 and 70-300 VR for almost the same price. (gives that additional 100 mm reach)

[amts]

Originally Posted by RichardSeah My preference: 18-70 and 70-300.

Agree, especially if you are a little fussy with image quality. If you just want convenience, then 18-200VR is king.

[Override2Zion]

I used to own the 55-200 VR and I still have the 18-200 VR with me now. Personally I wasn't impressed with the 55-200 VR but for its price tag I guess we can't complain too much.

1) The plastic body for the 55-200 VR ain't too much a problem if you aren't too fussy about the build.

2) The VR performance for the 18-200 as compaired to 55-200 is superior, since it VRII. After some testing, I realised i could get more usable hand-held shots with the 18-200 at lower shutter speeds. The 18-200mm features 2 VR modes, namely the "Normal" and "Active". In "Normal" mode, both vertical and lateral motions are compensated. In "Active" mode, only vertical motions are compensated for, lateral motions are ignored, this mode should be used when you are shooting from a moving vehicle. Can't say much about the image quality, didn't really compare images made by the 2 lenses side by side.

3) I agree with bro lsisaxon & cteckwee about the convenience of having the 18-200mm. I keep my 18-200mm and bring it along when I go travelling, snap it on and forget about the rest. Its heavier than the 55-200mm but definitely lighter and less bulky than the 17-55mm + 55-200mm.

4) The 17-55mm (Aperture f/2.8 widest constant) is a different class as compared to the 18-200mm/55-200mm, can't really say which combination is the best. It really depends on what you shoot.

[giantcanopy]

18-200 as the walkaround lens. I do bring other lenses for other specific purposes

Ryan