18-200mm lens

[FuKiE]

I am currently lookin for an 18-200mm lens...
Any recommendations? Nikon version seems good especially with the VR but it is too expensive for me (I am just a student). ~$1300!!!!!
Currently lookin at the Sigma and Tamron version, if i am correct, they don't have VR and have a smaller aperture, 6.3 instead of 5.6, right?
They are siginificantly cheaper, probably by halve(~ 550-650) , but is quality comprimised? I don't mind not having a VR... Anyway i need to get a tripod soon too...

 

[stinkyfoot17]

I will go with the nikon 18-200 VR. Ex, yes, but optics wise, will definitely have an edge over other 3rd party brands. Plus it has VR ... saves you the hassle of a tripod, sometimes ... not to mention you can shoot at slower shutter speeds handheld.

 

[cheersjy]

You may like to refer to this website for a detailed side-by-side comparison of the three lenses: http://www.cameralabs.com/

 

[aaron80]

Hi if u are on a budget, no point burning your pocket big-time.. I have some friends using the tamron/sigma 18-200mm, taking pics way better than ppl using the Nikon 18-200Vr. We are just into photography, not doing test-charts to see which lens is slightly sharper/contrasty etc.. If u are good, I dun think ppl will see much of a difference, if u r bad, ppl oso wun see the difference no matter which lens u used.. I will say go with your budget.. Vr may be good to have, but for the money u can get another lens(tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20) in addition to the sigma/tamron 18-200mm liao..

 

[blive]

What camera are you using now? What existing lens do you have? Won't they work for you now? Do you really need the 18-200mm range in 1 lense?

 

[photographique]

Go get Tamron 18-200mm anddon think too much, it's very good, most ppl buy it before the Nikkor one came out

 

[metallilan]

Hi if u are on a budget, no point burning your pocket big-time.. I have some friends using the tamron/sigma 18-200mm, taking pics way better than ppl using the Nikon 18-200Vr. We are just into photography, not doing test-charts to see which lens is slightly sharper/contrasty etc.. If u are good, I dun think ppl will see much of a difference, if u r bad, ppl oso wun see the difference no matter which lens u used.. I will say go with your budget.. Vr may be good to have, but for the money u can get another lens(tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20) in addition to the sigma/tamron 18-200mm liao..

Agreed. I'm also a student on a budget. So far my lens range is 18-70 and 70-300. Works well for the things im shooting.

Was thinking of getting the 18-200, but after i got my 70-300, i forgo the thought, since my shooting style is either wide/tele, not both in one - at least for my case scenario.

Up to you though. The VR is good, but if you can afford it...nail it then! :bsmilie:

 

[Chew Siow Ming]

I am currently lookin for an 18-200mm lens...
Any recommendations? Nikon version seems good especially with the VR but it is too expensive for me (I am just a student). ~$1300!!!!!
Currently lookin at the Sigma and Tamron version, if i am correct, they don't have VR and have a smaller aperture, 6.3 instead of 5.6, right?
They are siginificantly cheaper, probably by halve(~ 550-650) , but is quality comprimised? I don't mind not having a VR... Anyway i need to get a tripod soon too...

forget the sigma 18-200mm, save & get a 18-200mm VR, shld be able to get it at ard $1240, alternatively u can also wait for MO.

 

[kniveswood]

I vote for the VR.

f6.3 at 200mm is way too slow for many scenarios. Lenses with a wide focal range usually sacrifices some optical qualities such as distortion and corner softness. So why sacrifice when you can't even use the 200mm much?

Unless you are sure u'll only shoot under bright sunlight or if you will use a tripod all the time.

 

[FuKiE]

getting the VR but not tripod might be allright with me... but i still need a tripod of nite photography eh?

anyway, i am using a D50, currently with the kit lens and 55-200mm lens. I am considering the 18-200mm lens, because i am going to have a trip at the end of the year and i don't want to keep changin lenses(due to obvious reasons).

Also, its easier for me to take photos in sch concerts.... at least i don't have to change between my current lens so many times... And I want to have more flexibility taking pictures... I think i can sacrifice a little with the 6.3, since i am currently borrowing SB-800 flash from my teacher during concerts.

 

[kniveswood]

getting the VR but not tripod might be allright with me... but i still need a tripod of nite photography eh?

anyway, i am using a D50, currently with the kit lens and 55-200mm lens. I am considering the 18-200mm lens, because i am going to have a trip at the end of the year and i don't want to keep changin lenses(due to obvious reasons).

Also, its easier for me to take photos in sch concerts.... at least i don't have to change between my current lens so many times... And I want to have more flexibility taking pictures... I think i can sacrifice a little with the 6.3, since i am currently borrowing SB-800 flash from my teacher during concerts.

Yes u still need a tripod for night photography.

You seem set on getting a 3rd party one. But as many of us suggest, do consider the nikon's offering. Keep in mind that the f6.3 at 200mm is slower than your 55-200mm. Do you find yourself struggling even at f5.6/200mm with that lens? If so, a f6.3 will make things worse.

 

[metallilan]

Yes u still need a tripod for night photography.

You seem set on getting a 3rd party one. But as many of us suggest, do consider the nikon's offering. Keep in mind that the f6.3 at 200mm is slower than your 55-200mm. Do you find yourself struggling even at f5.6/200mm with that lens? If so, a f6.3 will make things worse.

Depends on how much he has at the moment though. I know i'm not those type of student who has money to spend on 1K plus lenses when i dont even have enough to survive my day to day endeavours :bigeyes:

 

[kniveswood]

Depends on how much he has at the moment though. I know i'm not those type of student who has money to spend on 1K plus lenses when i dont even have enough to survive my day to day endeavours :bigeyes:

That's true. But what I feel is if he doesnt want to go VR, it's fine. But he has to note that although he will gain convenience, his 200mm will become f6.3 instead of f5.6 in his current lens. So it's kind of like a downgrade in this aspect.

Whereas if go for VR, the f5.6 at 200mm remains, and he gains both convenience and VR as well. Only thing lost is $$$. :bsmilie:

 

[blive]

getting the VR but not tripod might be allright with me... but i still need a tripod of nite photography eh?

anyway, i am using a D50, currently with the kit lens and 55-200mm lens. I am considering the 18-200mm lens, because i am going to have a trip at the end of the year and i don't want to keep changin lenses(due to obvious reasons).

Also, its easier for me to take photos in sch concerts.... at least i don't have to change between my current lens so many times... And I want to have more flexibility taking pictures... I think i can sacrifice a little with the 6.3, since i am currently borrowing SB-800 flash from my teacher during concerts.

If that is your only reason due to not changing lenses during your trip, then stick to using your current set-up if budget is an issue. no poiint getting many lenses and keep on upgrading cause you can't afford now.

Many people have gone travelling with a few lenses and have no problems. Just learn how to change lenses quickly. No problem with that. Imagine us who don't have such choices in the past, or even when zoom lenses were not available, only primes. how did they learn to cope with what they have. Adaptability is a very important skill.

You always need to be aware of your requirements and have the required lenses on your camera for the shot. Anticipate the action.

Aftre all the reviews, for the 18-200mm range, I won't consider the others, except the Nikon 18-200mm VR len, because it comes with VR, which is more useful than just the entire range.

Ultimately the choice is yours, if you choose to just BBB. No wonder so many people always complain they got not enough money...

 

[blive]

Depends on how much he has at the moment though. I know i'm not those type of student who has money to spend on 1K plus lenses when i dont even have enough to survive my day to day endeavours :bigeyes:

Yeah, I only got my first SLR camera after I started work, and then didn't even consider getting other lenses, cause my old F65 comes with 28-80 & 70-300mm G lenses, which is sufficient for my travelling need.s I learn to cope with what i had. But then I didn't have clubsnap or the internet then, so did not know better....

 

[aaron80]

Same here, I have been dreaming about a Dslr since schooling and army days but couldn't afford to get one.. Only after I started working and saved up then I got myself my very 1st Dslr.. Its an ex hobby, so u must learn to control and compromise on the things u really need and the things that u want. So far I only got 2 lens but I am quite happy already. I dun believe u need to spend 1k or 2k to get a lens just so that u can take gd pics. If u have the $, by all means get those lens. However If u are on budget, get the next best alternatives. As long as they can help u accomplish your goals(your pics in this case) they are good lens liao.. Like what I mentioned earlier, we are not doing comparison charts etc..

Yeah, I only got my first SLR camera after I started work, and then didn't even consider getting other lenses, cause my old F65 comes with 28-80 & 70-300mm G lenses, which is sufficient for my travelling need.s I learn to cope with what i had. But then I didn't have clubsnap or the internet then, so did not know better....

 

[FuKiE]

Haha, first i am gettin the lens for a school overseas trip... so less lens = more flexibility.

2nd I do agree on getttin a VR but its 600 more compared to a 3rd party one... and i am student... so budget might be a problem, worse comes to worse, i might not even get a 18-200mm lens.

3rd, i also do agree with the slow f6.3, but again $$$$ :bsmilie:

4th, most of the time, an 18-200mm would come handy, especially in snap shots... but by the time i change my lens... the shot probably "flew" away.... even if i were to change at lightning speed.. something is gonna get damaged or scratched...

5th, maybe i will just scrap the idea of getting an 18-2oomm and get a tripod instead... unless someone is willing to sponsor me :sweat:

Anyway, thanks for the tips guys!

 

[westwest1]

Haha, first i am gettin the lens for a school overseas trip... so less lens = more flexibility.

2nd I do agree on getttin a VR but its 600 more compared to a 3rd party one... and i am student... so budget might be a problem, worse comes to worse, i might not even get a 18-200mm lens.

3rd, i also do agree with the slow f6.3, but again $$$$ :bsmilie:

4th, most of the time, an 18-200mm would come handy, especially in snap shots... but by the time i change my lens... the shot probably "flew" away.... even if i were to change at lightning speed.. something is gonna get damaged or scratched...

5th, maybe i will just scrap the idea of getting an 18-2oomm and get a tripod instead... unless someone is willing to sponsor me :sweat:

Anyway, thanks for the tips guys!

Then what lens u getting instead???

 

[FuKiE]

i have not decided wat i want yet... i was just stating my intial reasons for getting an 18-2oomm lens...

 

[metallilan]

i have not decided wat i want yet... i was just stating my intial reasons for getting an 18-2oomm lens...

Whats your budget then? How much do you have at the moment to spend...