Comparison on 18-200mm vr and 70-300mm vr
- Thread starter intregra2509
- Start date
- Status
The 70-300 VR works well on a D80. Do note the VR mechanism will sound a bit scary compared to its 2.8 brother
I normally carry around my 70-300 VR for fun daytime shots as it is pin sharp wide open :thumbsup:
Nikon is doing very well for making this lens. Bokeh is not very great tho
for me to go travel , i am willing to take as many useful lens as possible . since spend money on feight , might take more nice photo . i did own a 70-300 G lens before and normally for trip i will take 2 lens along with me .
Just came back from a trip to Sydney just with the 18-200VR and the 50mm f/1.8 for indoor shots. Pictures turned out very well. Had to use the 18-200 for lots of wildlife shots in the zoo and I was very happy with it, distortion and all. Performed far better than expected. WIll post some pics up soon.
Also had same issue as I have the D80 kit as well. Bought the 70-300 VR after much deliberation. Got some good shots on the 70-300VR at the zoo. Got some good shots at 300mm (100% still 100% focused and clear.) Was impressed with the lens for sure for the price of $800++ only lens. 18-200mm lens good only if you have no 18-135 kit which also was quite good without VR (only issue vs 18-200mm VR) Anyway do not need that much VR for 18-50-75mm range I think. Gets very tough after if without VR. 300mm with VR on monopod is best for outdoor day shoot. Great lens for sure.
Well, VR is useful at the wide end for night shots. Being able to handhold for 0.5-1s at the wide end is really useful.
I think you need to be more specific. It will work on a Nikon DSLR or a Kodak/Fujifilm DSLR based on a Nikon body. ;p
Actually, I think the general consensus is that the 18-200VR is a far superior lens in term of build quality and image quality and focus speed to the 18-135. I have the 18-70mm which in itself is quite noticeably better than the 18-135 in many, many aspects, and the 18-200 matches or bests the 18-70 optically in most areas.
Everyone has their own perference, some I disagree.
My preference for the TS to consider.
18-200 VR - as an 'all-in" walkabout lens - BEST now for Nikon DSLR. I was so glad I had this with me for my Huangshan trip 2 weeks ago! My two other lenses, 17-55/2.8 and the 70-300/3.5~5.6, stayed in the bag. in fact 70-300 ended as a virgin for the whole trip.
I am a novice but I have a bunch of others lenses (more than 10, including few 'pro' ones). Unless you are so picky about the other technical aspects and the situations allow for, the heavy one, long one, short one, prime one - can be a pain-in-?-? when you are travelling or out for fun trip...
So for the TS, buying the 70~300 only solve your walkabout requirement mathematically, unless you need the extra FL, but you need a monopod, at least. So you walk around with a monopod and 2 lenses and end up only using the 18-135. And I walk with only the 18-200VR and capture more keeper memories, with much less hassle, than you, and i lose very little, if any, of any 'practical value' 300mm shots which you may get. (unless you are on 'special' assignment)
Consider
1. stay put, save$ and see if you can try until you know what you want
2. if cannot stay put, buy 18-200VR, sell 18-135.
3. still got $, then get the long one.
My preference for the TS to consider.
18-200 VR - as an 'all-in" walkabout lens - BEST now for Nikon DSLR. I was so glad I had this with me for my Huangshan trip 2 weeks ago! My two other lenses, 17-55/2.8 and the 70-300/3.5~5.6, stayed in the bag. in fact 70-300 ended as a virgin for the whole trip.
I am a novice but I have a bunch of others lenses (more than 10, including few 'pro' ones). Unless you are so picky about the other technical aspects and the situations allow for, the heavy one, long one, short one, prime one - can be a pain-in-?-? when you are travelling or out for fun trip...
So for the TS, buying the 70~300 only solve your walkabout requirement mathematically, unless you need the extra FL, but you need a monopod, at least. So you walk around with a monopod and 2 lenses and end up only using the 18-135. And I walk with only the 18-200VR and capture more keeper memories, with much less hassle, than you, and i lose very little, if any, of any 'practical value' 300mm shots which you may get. (unless you are on 'special' assignment)
Consider
1. stay put, save$ and see if you can try until you know what you want
2. if cannot stay put, buy 18-200VR, sell 18-135.
3. still got $, then get the long one.
actually i quite agree with you , 18-135mm is indeed a gd lens and so far i use it at 18-50-75mm , the result was quite gd .
my only problem is from 135 onwards to 300mm , whereby handshake quite often, especially on night shot .
Another question is whether is very normal for night spot to be a bit blur when handheld (without VR and tripod)
So far for Nikon and FujiFilm DSLRs:thumbsup:
but I'm not exactly sure about Kodak DSLR :sweat:
Perhaps a visit to your local camera shop for a test run would be in order :thumbsup:
i mean is it normal that the night shot image to be not very sharp without a tripod or vr . is it due to handshake ? cos i had take a few night shot which is not that sharp.
i used shutter piority with 1/10 shutter speed and 800 iso.
Not really, not as many as D200. Maybe you are looking at other brand of 18-200.
This is still a hot lens around... after almost 1 year of introduction.
Think Nikon has sucessfully marketing this product very well. Looking at new range of VRs coming this year.
This is still a hot lens around... after almost 1 year of introduction.
Think Nikon has sucessfully marketing this product very well. Looking at new range of VRs coming this year.
Do you think you can handhold at 1/10s without handshake (at telephoto focal lengths)? I know some CS-ers can. I can't. You ask yourself that question and you should understand where the blur comes from.
The reason why tripod is normal during a night shoot is because of the very fact that your exposures are usually longer than any handholdable shutter speed, even with VR.
Because the demand for this lens is still there in the market and these poor souls probably got brainwashed by the information here on supposedly poor image quality and blamed the lens instead of their poor camera technique.
See this link for what you CAN do with a 18-200:-
http://www.j-roumagnac.net/index.php?x=browse&category=27
Nikon, unlike some other brands, does poorly with marketing. It is a good product which is why it is selling so well. I haven't seen any ads for 18-200VR yet. ;p I've been sticking with Nikon because they let the product speak for itself, not some marketing people saying how good the product is.
- Status
