Focal Lengths? 17-50?? 70-200??

[GeNeZ]

Err guys...
I'm beri beri confused with these matters....
So as i see from some other posts,
they say that get 17-50 and 70-200 will roughly cover all the range....
So let's say, if i got a 18-200 instead.. Wouldn't it be roughly the same as getting the two lenses... Save time & Money??

 

[renegade150]

those are professional lenses...
constant apertures...superior image quality and glass etc.
you cannot compare a hyperzoom consumer lens to the big boys...

 

[Squid]

...they say that get 17-50 and 70-200 will roughly cover all the range....So let's say, if i got a 18-200 instead.. Wouldn't it be roughly the same as getting the two lenses...

For Nikon DSLR bodies, "17-50" would probably refer to Tamron (AF) 17-50mm F2.8. "70-200" would refer to Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8. "18-200" refers to Nikon AF-S VRII 18-200 F3.5-5.6

IMHO, getting "17-50" and "70-200" to cover all the range means that you have two lenses to cover range of 17-200 mm for DSLR in most lighting condition. including low light condition.

Getting a single "18-200" will cover same range for DSLR in most lighting condition, preferably normal & bright light condition.

 

[lsisaxon]

Err guys...
I'm beri beri confused with these matters....
So as i see from some other posts,
they say that get 17-50 and 70-200 will roughly cover all the range....
So let's say, if i got a 18-200 instead.. Wouldn't it be roughly the same as getting the two lenses... Save time & Money??

See http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=275123 and you decide for yourself. It really depends on what you need as Squid has pointed out.

 

[ihub88]

Save time & Money??

yes:thumbsup:

 

[zoossh]

Err guys...
I'm beri beri confused with these matters....
So as i see from some other posts,
they say that get 17-50 and 70-200 will roughly cover all the range....
So let's say, if i got a 18-200 instead.. Wouldn't it be roughly the same as getting the two lenses... Save time & Money??

you save time by not needing to change lens.

you may or may not save money depending on whether you are buying the cheaper or more expensive versions of each lens. but a good quality 17-50 + 70-200 will be more expensive than a good quality 18-200.

so why does people still want to get two heavy lens instead of one? becos the quality of shorter zoom range is better. also they can afford larger max. aperture size becos they have the more superior quality needed for larger aperture. hence there is a weigh between convinience and quality. anything that have convinience and fair quality (but not better than the best short range) will be more expensive (but not more expensive than the best short range).

 

[mirrorslap]

Also, most copies of the 18-200mm "creeps". This is one of those minor issues that may irk the user enough to want a pro lens instead.

 

[lsisaxon]

Also, most copies of the 18-200mm "creeps". This is one of those minor issues that may irk the user enough to want a pro lens instead.

It doesn't affect the image does it? ;p Most important is that it doesn't extend itself out when I'm carrying it, and it doesn't.

 

[zoossh]

It doesn't affect the image does it? ;p Most important is that it doesn't extend itself out when I'm carrying it, and it doesn't.

it does extend if you are carrying the body without holding the lens. it does extend if you are holding the lens but not tight enough.

 

[Artosoft]

it does extend if you are carrying the body without holding the lens. it does extend if you are holding the lens but not tight enough.

It creep when you point it up or down only. Gravity is the keyword.

Regards,
Arto.

 

[mcn]

in other words, i gather that it does creep.

 

[lsisaxon]

it does extend if you are carrying the body without holding the lens. it does extend if you are holding the lens but not tight enough.

Eh.. if you remember to zoom it back to 18mm it should not creep out by itself. Mine doesn't.

 

[zoossh]

Eh.. if you remember to zoom it back to 18mm it should not creep out by itself. Mine doesn't.

it is tight only at the ends, but given enough weight or movement, it may still slide down. different people have different shooting techniques meant for different purposes. having to hold it and to push back to 18mm or 200mm, to reduce (not eliminate) the chances or frequency of creeping is still a nuisance to most ppl. i say most, not all, becos some, like you, have found it ok to do those manoveuves.

like what mcn says, bottomline is - it does creep. but repeated cumblesome measures can still be undertaken to prevent that - that is also true

 

[quinton]

hmmm.. creeping on the 18-200mm VR lens huh.. did not know about that. :bigeyes:

Guess, it will unlikely be on my list of lens then. Just had a sunset shot at labrador yesterday and if I had to use that lens while I shoot the "after sunset" at about 15s pointing largely at the sky, and it creeps... oooh.. it'll be painfully blur.

 

[lsisaxon]

hmmm.. creeping on the 18-200mm VR lens huh.. did not know about that. :bigeyes:

Guess, it will unlikely be on my list of lens then. Just had a sunset shot at labrador yesterday and if I had to use that lens while I shoot the "after sunset" at about 15s pointing largely at the sky, and it creeps... oooh.. it'll be painfully blur.

It doesn't creep unless you really point it more than 45 degrees up or down. For your case, I'd suggest you shoot with a prime lens. ;p