Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: stupid question...

  1. #1

    Default stupid question...

    sorry to ask such silly question. but i'm quite curious. does a 18-200mm @ 200mm zooms the same as a 70-200mm tele zoom @ 200mm? n wat makes a tele zoom lens, compared to 18-200mm or 18-250 etc.

    assuming i'm referring to Nikkor lenses.

    another thing. i just printed a photo. it seems alright on my screen. but when the printing came out, it was quite dark. colours were too saturated. (warm) my friend told me that our lcd screen sees RGB whereas a printer sees CMYK. by changing the mode to CMYK in photoshop help make the printing look better or rather closer to wat i've edited n see on my lcd?
    Last edited by fergo; 8th February 2008 at 08:51 PM.
    What i need is the skill and vision of a pro... not a pro camera!

  2. #2

    Default Re: stupid question...

    200mm is 200mm... But with all lenses there are compromises. An 18-200 will usually have worse image quality than a 70-200 since the engineers don't need to compromise so much to get a longer focal range.
    Alpha

  3. #3

    Default Re: stupid question...

    hahaha.. thanks dude..

    i was thinking of getting a 70-200mm but i really have a 18-200mm VR. but on second thought, i think it'll be stupid to get two 200mm lenses. so needed to clarify.
    What i need is the skill and vision of a pro... not a pro camera!

  4. #4

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Quote Originally Posted by fergo View Post
    sorry to ask such silly question. but i'm quite curious. does a 18-200mm @ 200mm zooms the same as a 70-200mm tele zoom @ 200mm? n wat makes a tele zoom lens, compared to 18-200mm or 18-250 etc.

    assuming i'm referring to Nikkor lenses.

    another thing. i just printed a photo. it seems alright on my screen. but when the printing came out, it was quite dark. colours were too saturated. (warm) my friend told me that our lcd screen sees RGB whereas a printer sees CMYK. by changing the mode to CMYK in photoshop help make the printing look better or rather closer to wat i've edited n see on my lcd?
    not always. the 200mm on one lens can be slightly lesser than 200mm on a another lens. meaning u may get like 198.20mm instead of an actual 200mm. other than that, u will probably not get as good an IQ on the superzoom lens.

  5. #5
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Quote Originally Posted by fergo View Post
    hahaha.. thanks dude..

    i was thinking of getting a 70-200mm but i really have a 18-200mm VR. but on second thought, i think it'll be stupid to get two 200mm lenses. so needed to clarify.
    The 70-200 and the 18-200 serve different purposes

  6. #6

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Quote Originally Posted by giantcanopy View Post
    The 70-200 and the 18-200 serve different purposes
    besides the IQ diff of the 2 lenses. the 18-200 provides the range that the 70-200 has right?
    What i need is the skill and vision of a pro... not a pro camera!

  7. #7
    Member terryansimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Quahog, Rhode Island
    Posts
    95

    Default Re: stupid question...

    assuming all variables are constant, the 70-200 should provide the same range as the 18-200. however, as we all know, the variables are not constant in this case, so you would need to weigh up the pros and cons of having an "overlap"

  8. #8

    Default Re: stupid question...

    If take from the same spot, my 80-200 has more reach then the 18-200mm.

    if you think 18-200 is good enough why carry 70-200 with the heavy weight walking around, then just 18-200 is more then enough for you.

    70-200 is f2.8/VR , 18-200 is f5.6 at 200mm so if you think the VR can have 3-4stop advantages so why paying to for f2.8 lens and why Nikon build so many lens with similar range over lapping? cos they are diff lens not only in IQ but diff needs. Just an example -

    Eg, If I want to shoot sport at 200mm f2.8 1/250 ISO400 using 70-200 lens but my 18-200mm might be 200mm f5.6 1/60 ISO400. Eg my super VR is working fine at 200mm with speed only 1/60sec but at this speed I cant take action sport and I have to up the ISO to ISO800 or 1000.

    Just to share, I not good in writing hope you guy understand.
    Last edited by STTNP; 11th February 2008 at 02:51 PM.
    Nikon D600 N35f2, N50f1.4, N24-120f4, Tokina 20-35f2.8, SB900,

  9. #9
    Member/Tangshooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ClubSNAP Community
    Posts
    3,118

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Its not fair to compare lens of different focal range, every lens is unique, and they each serve a different purpose..depending on ur needs..

    But 1 thing to note, the wider the zoom range more distortions it is..that is why many are still willing to pay for primes..
    This is an electronic post which requires no signature.

  10. #10
    Deregistered fabianaino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Orchard
    Posts
    1,454

    Default Re: stupid question...

    I tend to agree that both lens are build for different purpose in mind.

    disregarding the range at 200mm since they are abt the same, what you get froma 70200F2.8 is better optics, if you are pixel peeper like me, you will like it. But hold on, the difference ain't that huge for the difference in price we are paying. I wouldn't say that the 18200 is THAT much worse either.

    The advantage of a 18200mm is athe close focusing distanse of abt 0.45m, and you can focus even at that distanse which can render pretty good OOF I must say. For items that's not that small, the 18200 can function close to a macro and produces pretty good shallow depth of field. The advatage of 70200 F2.8 is that when you zoom far away, you get good DOF compare with 18200 with stops at 5.6. For DOF diehard fans, the F2.8 is a MUST.

    However the min focusing distanse for 70200F2.8 is long at 1.50m, which is not very useful when you need to shoot closeup. That puts me in dismay when I think about getting the 70200mm.

    With a 18200, you can take landscape, closeup, general zoom, indoor, outdoor, skip around different venues and not having to worry about tripping over when you need to move away from the subject to get focus.

    If you are owning these two lens, probably the user will think before deciding which lens is suitable for the particular event, if it's a stage event, exhibition or sorts with the subject is at least 1.5m away or not really needs a close up focusing, 70200mm is probably IT, however, if the user is entering into a uncharter territory then probably is 18200mm is a safer bet. We will get MORE pictures with large DOF rather than none at all due to the lack of focusing distance.

    There are probabaly other distinct advantages, but I wouldn't consider barrel distortions or noise level on the top list. =)

  11. #11
    Deregistered fabianaino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Orchard
    Posts
    1,454

    Default Re: stupid question...

    some of my shots using a 18200 at 200mm close focusing






    Shots at 135mm, close focusing


  12. #12

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    200mm is 200mm... But with all lenses there are compromises. An 18-200 will usually have worse image quality than a 70-200 since the engineers don't need to compromise so much to get a longer focal range.
    Let me correct that.. 200mm is 200mm at infinity. It seems like for these superzooms, the engineers cheated by making the lens effectively shorter at closer focusing distance. The Nikkor 18-200VR at 200mm zoom position has an effective focal length of only around 75mm at its closest focusing distance. So for closer objects, you will find that a telezoom has a greater magnification at 200mm zoom position.

    The other difference is the aperture. If you're referring to the 70-200/2.8VR, it has a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Optical qualitywise, it is probably easier to optimize the performance of a shorter range zoom than the 18-200, so there's definitely some compromise in the quality of the 18-200.

  13. #13

    Default Re: stupid question...

    Quote Originally Posted by fergo View Post
    another thing. i just printed a photo. it seems alright on my screen. but when the printing came out, it was quite dark. colours were too saturated. (warm) my friend told me that our lcd screen sees RGB whereas a printer sees CMYK. by changing the mode to CMYK in photoshop help make the printing look better or rather closer to wat i've edited n see on my lcd?
    Is your monitor calibrated? Was the image straight out of the camera or did you tweak it?

  14. #14
    Senior Member Leong23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: stupid question...

    To add on, take a look a the rear glass element of the 18-200 when you zoom it from 18mm to 200mm. At 200mm, the rear glass sink deep inside into the lens. The magnification is plainly done by moving the glass further from the sensor. But the action will cause loss of sharpness and contrast. 70-200f2.8 is using a more complex mechanism, there are almost no significant loss of sharpness and contrast at 200mm.
    Last edited by Leong23; 13th February 2008 at 05:23 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •