Comparison on 18-200mm vr and 70-300mm vr


Status
Not open for further replies.

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
I had read a few articles on AFS VR 18-200 and AFS VR 70-300 . I am abit confused on which one to get . can someone comment and give advice .

does the AFS VR 70-300 work well on D80
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
They're both in completely different classes.. What do you want to use it for, what lens have you got, and what's your budget?
 

smalltiger

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
340
0
0
Chinatown
I had read a few articles on AFS VR 18-200 and AFS VR 70-300 . I am abit confused on which one to get . can someone comment and give advice .

does the AFS VR 70-300 work well on D80
Ask yourself what you are going to shoot :dunno: Both are totally different lens in range:think:
 

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
most proably to take so distance shoot .

i am having a 18-135 kit len and planing to get a 12-24 tokina and 70-300vr .

pls advice
 

smalltiger

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
340
0
0
Chinatown
most proably to take so distance shoot .

i am having a 18-135 kit len and planing to get a 12-24 tokina and 70-300vr .

pls advice
Since you got the 18mm-135mm kit lens then mayb can get the 70mm-300mm VR lens. No point to get the 18mm-200mm VR liao. Just my 2 cents. Hope it help;)
 

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
Since you got the 18mm-135mm kit lens then mayb can get the 70mm-300mm VR lens. No point to get the 18mm-200mm VR liao. Just my 2 cents. Hope it help;)
thank for your advice bro . will look into it .
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
IMO 18-200 will make a better walkaround lens than the 18-135, for a lot more money. I'd get the 18-200 if I had the money, sell the 18-135, and buy a 200-400 (or something in that range).
 

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
IMO 18-200 will make a better walkaround lens than the 18-135, for a lot more money. I'd get the 18-200 if I had the money, sell the 18-135, and buy a 200-400 (or something in that range).
ur advice sound very attractive but it really cost a bomb . and for what i know at 200mm , 70-300 vr is sharper than 18-200vr and has less distortion .

pls correct me if i am wrong
 

smalltiger

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
340
0
0
Chinatown
ur advice sound very attractive but it really cost a bomb . and for what i know at 200mm , 70-300 vr is sharper than 18-200vr and has less distortion .

pls correct me if i am wrong
You are right :thumbsup: And do you know that 200mm-400mm f4 Nikon lens cost close to $9k:bigeyes: :bsmilie:
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
ur advice sound very attractive but it really cost a bomb . and for what i know at 200mm , 70-300 vr is sharper than 18-200vr and has less distortion .

pls correct me if i am wrong
Well, since you were comparing the 70-300 and 18-200 initially, I assumed that money wasn't really that big an issue :p

I don't know about sharpness, but I doubt the 70-300 will have better colours than the 18-200. Distortion maybe, but the 70-300 isn't that well known around here (the Sigma 70-300 is much more popular. No IS/VR/whatever though)
 

Prataz

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
352
0
0
40
Tampines
I own the 70-300 VR.

No complains and it's cheaper then the 18-200VR.

Keep the 18-135 for walkabout and use the 70-300VR as an dedicated Tele Lens.

It's much cheaper then geting a 18-200 VR.

(It's also good for portraits)
 

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
thank everyone for all your golden advice .
 

tanjonhan

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2006
2,716
3
38
36
what about focusing?the non vr 70-300 took forever to focus, is the VR version faster?(how does it compare to 18-200)
 

Prataz

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
352
0
0
40
Tampines
i'm not sure abt the non VR 70-300.

But the VR version is AFS lens. So ideally, it should focus as fast as the 18-200 VR as both are AFS correct?

Also the 70-300 VR is also suitable for Full Frame usage if you ever want to use it on Film Nikons or when Nikon comes up with a FF Digital =)

K I'm biased coz I don't have the 18-200 VR yet =P

But ideally, for the TS, you should go and try out both lens. See how they work and interact. Go and try the lens for like 1- 2 hrs inside the camera shop or until they chase you out.

Then compare the pictures at home to see which one you prefer.

Once you have a conclusion, then Buy Buy Buy!
 

intregra2509

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
162
0
0
i'm not sure abt the non VR 70-300.

But the VR version is AFS lens. So ideally, it should focus as fast as the 18-200 VR as both are AFS correct?

Also the 70-300 VR is also suitable for Full Frame usage if you ever want to use it on Film Nikons or when Nikon comes up with a FF Digital =)

K I'm biased coz I don't have the 18-200 VR yet =P

But ideally, for the TS, you should go and try out both lens. See how they work and interact. Go and try the lens for like 1- 2 hrs inside the camera shop or until they chase you out.

Then compare the pictures at home to see which one you prefer.

Once you have a conclusion, then Buy Buy Buy!


so can it work well in digital SLR
 

terpeh

New Member
May 27, 2006
109
0
0
jmmtn4aj , u mentioned that 70-300 may not have better color than 18-200? Where did u get this info from???

I have 70-300VR and I can tell you that this is an EXCELLENT lens for the price you are paying. VR works very well. This is extrememly impt for a long zoom lens. You can get very sharp image between 70-250mm. If you get a good copy, you can also get sharp images at 300mm.
The VR allows me to show at 1/15s handheld. Try to do this with the sigma.

Did you notice that it is hard to find 70-300VR in the B&S column? Why? Because those who own will not bear to part with it. There is no "alternative" to this lense for the quality vs. price, for those who don't like to carry tripod around. 80-200/2.8 is too heavy and it is also expensive.

Since you already have 18-135, i HIGHLY RECOMMEND you to buy 70-300mm.

I don't own 18-200, if someone who owns both lens is able to give a comparison of photo taken by 18-200 and 70-300 VR at 70mm would be great. I am pretty sure both are comparable, if not 70-300 will be better.
 

chegr

New Member
Jan 31, 2007
435
0
0
45
Integra, I hope you don't mind if I ask my own question here.

If you were to choose between 18-200VR or 18-135 + 70-300VR, which set will you bring for travel?
I like the versality of 18-200VR, but with 18-135 + 70-300VR, I get more reach.
For a walkabout, I can use 18-135mm. I (still) have a pretty steady hand.
Only when I need longer reach, then I'll swap to 70-300VR.
decision.. decision..
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
Ask yourself.

Are you willing to bring along more gear? Are you willing to change lenses? Is the environment friendly to swap lenses while you are out? Is it more of a leisure trip or a dedicated photography trip? What do you expect to be photographing? Wide landscapes? Within the confines of buildings?

:) You're asking questions that only you yourself have the answers to. Heh.
 

chegr

New Member
Jan 31, 2007
435
0
0
45
I only go for leisure photography.
No time or energy to go for pure photography trips.
As far as bringing more gear, I don't really mind.
Also, I'm sure I can find a place to change gear for these trips.
(these are small side-trips during research conferences)
The thing is I will never know unless I have all of these lenses and go for the actual trip itself and compare.

Anyone here has owned all of these lenses? Willing to share your experience.

Thanks
 

Status
Not open for further replies.