Nikon 18-200mm VR lens - one is enough?
- Thread starter lcwl99
- Start date
- Status
jack of all trades is a master of none
at first it will be enough
until you itchy hand go and try the dedicated lenses, then must BBB more and more
depends on what you like to shoot
and yes 17mm and 18mm big difference
at first it will be enough
until you itchy hand go and try the dedicated lenses, then must BBB more and more
depends on what you like to shoot
and yes 17mm and 18mm big difference
18-200mm is a good start and it offers as it is versatile in terms of its range and wanted something beyond what is offered by the kit lens like 18-70mm.
I use the Nikon 18-200mm for travelling and it is good enough for me as most of the time need to travel light and carry along only 1 len. Nikon 17-55mm/2.8 type of len for me use mainly for indoor low-lit shots. I am not a professional, outdoor shots with good lighting conditions, frankly I do not see very big difference in the resulting shots between the 17-200mm and 17-55mm assuming shooting at 50mm.
I use the Nikon 18-200mm for travelling and it is good enough for me as most of the time need to travel light and carry along only 1 len. Nikon 17-55mm/2.8 type of len for me use mainly for indoor low-lit shots. I am not a professional, outdoor shots with good lighting conditions, frankly I do not see very big difference in the resulting shots between the 17-200mm and 17-55mm assuming shooting at 50mm.
i'd suggest renting and trying for yourself
as for the SB600 or SB800 question
there are lots of threads in the nikon forum with the same question
you can also do a side by side feature comparison in the nikon singapore web site
but i feel that the SB600 will be sufficient, considering your intended use.
as for the SB600 or SB800 question
there are lots of threads in the nikon forum with the same question
you can also do a side by side feature comparison in the nikon singapore web site
but i feel that the SB600 will be sufficient, considering your intended use.
thats what i am infected of... first i got the 18-200MM thinking i would not get any lens.. but i just got my first prime.. 30mm F1.4:sweat: and i love it more then the zoom
only sigma have this lens range and is a HSM model so it autofocus on the d40/d40x/d60 as well.
i suggest you go to the nikon, sigma and tarmon website to find out more details...make good use of their websites as they even put specs on their various lens as well.
this lens have been discussed till death in the dpreview forum as well, go take a look.
I have the 18-200mm Nikkor. I have to say, it is a great lens if you know what you are getting into. As people have pointed out, it is never going to be as good as a dedicated lens. I had some reservations about buying it after reading the dpreview. They are quite critical of it (with just cause). But you have to remember what this lens is being compared to. If you are going to compare it to other telephoto lenses with less diverse ranges than this one then yes, it is going to lose out. However, if you are like me and dont want to constantly change lenses, risk dust getting in, and don't want to miss a moment because you need to swap out lenses then this one is for you. Dpreview is particularly critical about this lenses performance around 135mm. In my experience their review somewhat exaggerates the problem by (as is dpreviews way) putting the lens into extreme situations. I have had some fantastic results with it without major gripes about the sharpness of the lens. Also, I haven't noticed the distortion at 18mm being as bad as it was made out in the review...but perhaps that's just me.
I was seriously considering the 18-200mm Sigma lens, but the Nikkor is a bit faster, has the proper CPU inputs for the Nikon bodies and has the VRII which, in my experience, works fantastically. This lense is a good bit heavier than the Sigma and it makes my little D60 feel a little front-heavy, but with the way you place your hands under the lens it really makes no difference anyway. You do pay for all of this, I have to say, but I haven't regretted it at all...
I was seriously considering the 18-200mm Sigma lens, but the Nikkor is a bit faster, has the proper CPU inputs for the Nikon bodies and has the VRII which, in my experience, works fantastically. This lense is a good bit heavier than the Sigma and it makes my little D60 feel a little front-heavy, but with the way you place your hands under the lens it really makes no difference anyway. You do pay for all of this, I have to say, but I haven't regretted it at all...
If limited budget, go for SB 600 for a start out.
For professional usage, go for SB 800. Go do some research in Google to compare the differences.
Some features you might not even need in SB 800.
I have the 18-200mm Nikkor. I have to say, it is a great lens if you know what you are getting into. As people have pointed out, it is never going to be as good as a dedicated lens. I had some reservations about buying it after reading the dpreview. They are quite critical of it (with just cause). But you have to remember what this lens is being compared to. If you are going to compare it to other telephoto lenses with less diverse ranges than this one then yes, it is going to lose out. However, if you are like me and dont want to constantly change lenses, risk dust getting in, and don't want to miss a moment because you need to swap out lenses then this one is for you. Dpreview is particularly critical about this lenses performance around 135mm. In my experience their review somewhat exaggerates the problem by (as is dpreviews way) putting the lens into extreme situations. I have had some fantastic results with it without major gripes about the sharpness of the lens. Also, I haven't noticed the distortion at 18mm being as bad as it was made out in the review...but perhaps that's just me.
I was seriously considering the 18-200mm Sigma lens, but the Nikkor is a bit faster, has the proper CPU inputs for the Nikon bodies and has the VRII which, in my experience, works fantastically. This lense is a good bit heavier than the Sigma and it makes my little D60 feel a little front-heavy, but with the way you place your hands under the lens it really makes no difference anyway. You do pay for all of this, I have to say, but I haven't regretted it at all...
I own the 18-200 VR lens too. I am happy with it because it is a convenient lens for travel. As for sharpness, it seems that this lens is not as sharp as my kit lens (18-70mm).
mmm... now i'm reconsidering buying a 18-200mm
so... is the image quailty of a 55-200 better than an 18-200?? :bigeyes:
so... is the image quailty of a 55-200 better than an 18-200?? :bigeyes:
Seriously... I doubt 1 len is always enough - I have 5 other lens, excluding this lens. 3 of them was bought way before I got into DSLR, 1 came with the D70 and the final was the wide 12-24mm lens; and I am actually planning for another prime.
However, for its purpose, I am happy to travel with 2 lens - my wide and this 18-200mm. It reduces the amt of weight from my back, I don't have to keep changing lens from my normal range to zoom, etc.
Then again, I am not professional... So I guess my opinion does not count?!?!?!
However, for its purpose, I am happy to travel with 2 lens - my wide and this 18-200mm. It reduces the amt of weight from my back, I don't have to keep changing lens from my normal range to zoom, etc.
Then again, I am not professional... So I guess my opinion does not count?!?!?!
Basically, 55-200mm will be better than the 18-200mm (if we are comparing lenses of the same "grade" from the same manufacturer). As everybody else here has pointed out, the more you cram into one lens the less effective it becomes at any one thing. Just as Alpc pointed out, I am no professional either. I just want to be able to take nice photos when the opportunity arises. I do admit that I certainly don't stretch the limits of this lens so I am probably in no position to offer a professional opinion. None-the-less, I do find that is serves my purposes nicely and saves me a lot of hassle. If you are looking for a the best performance at every focal length you may be better served by a variety of primes.
well comparing the 18-200 to the 55-200 i think iq would be similar, although some might argue that the 55-200 is a more specific lense, i think it still doesnt have that quality i believe it was made to appeal to d40/d40x/d60 users who want the range and dont need the kind of quality one finds in lenses like the 70-300 and one more up the prime teles.
so bottom line, all i can say its a convinient lense. thats about it. personally i wouldnt use it for paid shoots. after using my kit lense 18-135 for a couple of months then witching to the tamron 2.8 i felt the jump and felt it again when i bought my first prime. 50 1.4
so my advice is, ignorance is bliss. cause ive set my mind to go on an all prime setup! haha. next lense 300 f4!
so bottom line, all i can say its a convinient lense. thats about it. personally i wouldnt use it for paid shoots. after using my kit lense 18-135 for a couple of months then witching to the tamron 2.8 i felt the jump and felt it again when i bought my first prime. 50 1.4
so my advice is, ignorance is bliss. cause ive set my mind to go on an all prime setup! haha. next lense 300 f4!
If you want to travel light and only use 1 lens, 18-200 VR is the one. I doubt the Sigma one is as good even if it has HSM.
If you are shooting in SG and has time to change lens, compose etc. Of course the quality of prime lenses or an AFS lens like 70-200 VR with constant 2.8 Aperture will be superior.
If you are shooting in SG and has time to change lens, compose etc. Of course the quality of prime lenses or an AFS lens like 70-200 VR with constant 2.8 Aperture will be superior.
- Status
Similar threads
