Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

  1. #21
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by NovaJet View Post
    Oh..... have googled about it ... everything above 100mm is considered telephoto, and everything under 50mm is considered wide angle. Great to know that!!
    I believe the focal length you got here is considered on a 35mm (Full Frame) basis..so, 50mm on a crop body (1.5) is a short tele (75mm)
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  2. #22
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyStrike View Post
    both still is at 200mm at the tele end.
    Not necessarily true all the time. The 18-200 may be shorter than the 55-200mm at 200mm in certain situations.

    It is called focus breathing.
    Read this: http://www.flickr.com/groups/356195@...7626009166844/
    Last edited by daredevil123; 9th September 2011 at 09:33 PM.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Levis View Post
    Huh...did I see wrongly?

    Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED has faster f stop than Nikon 18-200mm VR f3.5-5.6 ED??
    What i mean is if you compare the lens at zoom 55mm, 75mm, 105mm, 125mm, and 150mm; 55-200mm will give different f-stop (faster) than 18-200mm. Try it yourself or you can search the f-stops comparison in kenrockwell.

  4. #24
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Not necessarily true all the time. The 18-200 may be shorter than the 55-200mm at 200mm in certain situations.

    It is called focus breathing.
    Read this: http://www.flickr.com/groups/356195@...7626009166844/
    hmmm, very interesting read. Learning new stuffs everyday
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  5. #25
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    All DSLR focal lengths are based on Full frame specifications, whether or not it's DX or FX in Nikon context.

    Therefore, all DX lenses like for example 55-200mm is actually 82.5 to 300mm (FOV equivalent on FF) on all DX cameras. You still need to mulitply the 1.5 crop factor even though it's a DX lens.

    FX lenses are all usuable on DX cameras (1.5 crop factor need to be applied just as well) - but keep in mind that the D lenses cannot AF on lower end DX bodies due to the lack of motor screw to drive the AF on the lens. Some even older lenses like Ai/AiS can't be metered on lower end DX bodies - but can still be fitted on the bodies and you have to guess the exposure yourself.

    Nikon's 70-300 VR while due to really bad CA results, is very sharp nevertheless. Recently bought it for my kid's D5000 and it works really dandy. The results are more impressive than I thought initially.

    Tamron's latest 70-300, while better than Nikon's CA control has a different way of handling VR... Some may get used to it, some may not - it's based on personal preferences.

    Anyway for better lens comparisons, I'd recommended www.photozone.de - which is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Ken Rockwell's reviews.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  6. #26

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    the tamron's vibration compensation is very very reassuring.

  7. #27
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Not necessarily true all the time. The 18-200 may be shorter than the 55-200mm at 200mm in certain situations.

    It is called focus breathing.
    Read this: http://www.flickr.com/groups/356195@...7626009166844/
    On a slightly different note, I've tested 28-300 versus 70-300 recently. And 28-300 also have focus breathing at close distances. Additionally, 28-300 at 300mm is brighter than 70-300 at 300mm Even though both are at the same aperture size at 300mm, the image taken by 28-300 at 300 is much brighter... Personnel at NSC claims that this is due to the wider/bigger front element on 28-300mm.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  8. #28
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by tecnica View Post
    the tamron's vibration compensation is very very reassuring.
    Have you tried it against Panning shoots?
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  9. #29

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by kriegsketten View Post
    Have you tried it against Panning shoots?
    no, have not but will try it if i can get my hands on the lens again.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    18-200mm will be more versatile

  11. #31
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    The versatility you speak of is pretty subjective IMHO. Other than focal length convenience... it does nothing to beat 18-55/55-200 in terms of sharpness, not to mention the barrel/pin-cushion distortions comparisons which is horrid on 18-200mm... And for a slow lens it can't even beat the bokeh "punch-out" of the 50mm f/1.8D...

    Price of 18-200 allows you to get 55-200mm, 50f/1.8D or G, 35f/1.8G and even possibly a SB400/600 (to stretch it a little)? All of which are little unpolished gems by themselves...
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  12. #32
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by mazeppa26 View Post
    18-200mm will be more versatile
    It is not very versatile when it comes to low light situations.

  13. #33
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by kriegsketten View Post
    All DSLR focal lengths are based on Full frame specifications, whether or not it's DX or FX in Nikon context.

    Therefore, all DX lenses like for example 55-200mm is actually 82.5 to 300mm (FOV equivalent on FF) on all DX cameras. You still need to mulitply the 1.5 crop factor even though it's a DX lens.

    FX lenses are all usuable on DX cameras (1.5 crop factor need to be applied just as well) - but keep in mind that the D lenses cannot AF on lower end DX bodies due to the lack of motor screw to drive the AF on the lens. Some even older lenses like Ai/AiS can't be metered on lower end DX bodies - but can still be fitted on the bodies and you have to guess the exposure yourself.

    Nikon's 70-300 VR while due to really bad CA results, is very sharp nevertheless. Recently bought it for my kid's D5000 and it works really dandy. The results are more impressive than I thought initially.

    Tamron's latest 70-300, while better than Nikon's CA control has a different way of handling VR... Some may get used to it, some may not - it's based on personal preferences.

    Anyway for better lens comparisons, I'd recommended www.photozone.de - which is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Ken Rockwell's reviews.
    Bro, I think you already know this, but the 'D' implies that the lens is able to send distance information to the camera for flash exposure purposes. It has nothing to do with the AF motor.

    The absence of the "-S" (or "-I") identifier means the lens has no built in motor.

    I think it just so happens that there isn't an AF-S _____ D lens
    Exploring! :)

  14. #34
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    Bro, I think you already know this, but the 'D' implies that the lens is able to send distance information to the camera for flash exposure purposes. It has nothing to do with the AF motor.

    The absence of the "-S" (or "-I") identifier means the lens has no built in motor.

    I think it just so happens that there isn't an AF-S _____ D lens
    Aiyahahah... Pwned! I keep getting stuck with the idea that D denotes lenses without motor, bad habit - need to reformat my harddrive....

    Btw.... YES, I think there are AF-S _____ D lenses.

    Some Eggsamples:
    AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D
    AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D

    *phew* luckily my knowledge of lenses isn't too limited...
    Last edited by kriegsketten; 12th September 2011 at 11:17 AM.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  15. #35
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Quote Originally Posted by kriegsketten View Post
    Aiyahahah... Pawned! I keep getting stuck with the idea that D denotes lenses without motor, bad habit - need to reformat my harddrive....

    Btw.... YES, I think there are AF-S _____ D lenses.

    Some Eggsamples:
    AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D
    AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D

    *phew* luckily my knowledge of lenses isn't not THAT limited...
    Hahaha me pwned too!
    Exploring! :)

  16. #36

    Default

    Sad to say.. 18-200 is only a convenience lens. It's sharpness lose to a 200buck 55-200mm. Likewise for the Af speed.
    D700 - 24-70mm F2.8 ED - 105mm VR2 Micro - Samyang 14mm - 50mm 1.8D - Mb 10 - SB900 - SB400

  17. #37

    Default Re: Nikon 55-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm

    Used the 18-200 when I owned D300 back then, but sold it after I upgrade. That being said, I say it is better than 55-200. Seriously what I will advice to be more of a concern on a DX lens is between 18-55mm. Anything more, I suggest you move in and don't stand there. If you wanna reach beyond 100mm, you better have a good lens with fixed aperture. Else in any case you are either stuck with f/4 and smaller aperture or the quality degrade.

    If one value composition more than quality, I say use the 18-200 and move in until you can frame your subject between 18mm and 55mm. I assure you will appreciate the output more because near objects gives a better perspective, in my opinion. They are distorted in some sense with the edges of the frame stretches more, but isn't photography about capturing the moment, and also view things in a radically perspective from what your eyes can do ? it gives the art behind the glasses.

    For my gear now, I say 24-70 is the most versatile, reaching far and beyond will depends on the subject. If it's a lovely bird, you probably need 400mm and beyond. If it's a person, I'm curious why you are standing so far away. If it's a building, shouldn't you move nearer and capture with a wide angle like between 12mm and 24mm (FF). If it's a facial expression and you cannot get near, 200mm at f/2.8, not much lens out there does this, is your best option and it ain't cheap.

    Quote Originally Posted by small pig View Post
    Sad to say.. 18-200 is only a convenience lens. It's sharpness lose to a 200buck 55-200mm. Likewise for the Af speed.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •