headach on choosing lens~


Status
Not open for further replies.

rookie86

New Member
Jun 29, 2008
121
0
0
31
Tomato
#1
hey guys... i need a telephoto lens.. i'm thinking of getting the 55-200mm VR for $300. but i saw someone selling the tamron 18-200mm macro for $350.. which 1 so u think i should get? the tamron sounds tempting coz it means i do not need to carry my 18-55mm VR around if i got the 18-200.. so i now having a headach over which to choose.. care to advice??
 

J-Chan

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,361
1
0
#2
VR or not to VR, that is the question..
 

#3
if you would ask me, those lenses are rather light, and to me whether VR is in it doesn't really make a difference. You gotta train your hands to be stable. Try carrying about 3kg in your hand and that will really be a difference =D
 

J-Chan

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,361
1
0
#4
so going by your logic, VR would make no difference to a shot at 200mm?
 

MarkTan89

New Member
Jun 30, 2007
591
0
0
Boon Keng
#5
Since you already have a general purpose zoom lens (18-55mm VR kit lens) then just get the 55-200mm VR to compliment it perfectly. And besides, superzooms like the 18-200s are usually compromised in the image quality department. Versatility is one thing, quality is another. Which will you choose ? :)
 

Jul 2, 2004
489
1
18
Singapore
#6
If I were in your shoes, I'd go with the 55-200mm setup to complement the 18-55mm you already have. At 250mm you're gonna need great handholding technique, a tripod or a VR.
 

Simon_84

New Member
Mar 18, 2004
1,479
0
0
bukit batok
#7
the more the amount of zoom you have in one lens, the poorer the pic quality.
 

Apr 15, 2008
2,291
0
0
Singapore, east-ish
#9
the 18-200 :think:
wonderful focal range :thumbsup:
but no VR at 200mm is terrible if you handhold :cry: viewfinder jumps all over the place for me!

the 55-200mm:think:
not such a bad focal length either! :thumbsup:
with VR so you practically don't need to worry about hand-shaking at all!


i'd go for the 55-200VR (i did). but if i had extra cash, i'll sell it and buy a nikkor 18-200VR
so if you can tahan and save up 400+. why not sell your kit lens and get a 18-200VR?
 

Jul 14, 2007
1,291
0
0
600060
#11
Got myself a refurbished lightweight 55-200 non Vr for USD119 [vPost]. my kit lens 18-55 also non VR.
Happy with both.
Plus heavyweight Sigma 70-300mm.

BTW, how much does VR actually help? I know la, to a certain extent, but if your hands shake means shake lor... good posture and skills more important factor.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#12
The 18-200mm is a great lens for the convenience. The IQ is great. Of course the greater the zoom ratio the IQ will be slightly affected but I do not think it is so bad until you cannot take pictures with it.

I would save up for the 18-200 than to jump to intermediate lenses if you already have an intention to get it eventually. Of course unless you have an urgent need for shooting at longer ends then different story.

Ryan
 

drakon09

New Member
Aug 12, 2005
3,877
0
0
#13
Got myself a refurbished lightweight 55-200 non Vr for USD119 [vPost]. my kit lens 18-55 also non VR.
Happy with both.
Plus heavyweight Sigma 70-300mm.

BTW, how much does VR actually help? I know la, to a certain extent, but if your hands shake means shake lor... good posture and skills more important factor.
VR/IS is not a panacea for shaky hands and poor breathing control. Neither does it replace a tripod.

Let's just say VR/IS is something I still use with reservation.
 

Jul 14, 2007
1,291
0
0
600060
#14
VR/IS is not a panacea for shaky hands and poor breathing control. Neither does it replace a tripod.

Let's just say VR/IS is something I still use with reservation.
Thats what I personally feel too.

If I can get to save a few $$$ w/o VR, its a BIG deal for my pockets of course, why not, right? Of course VR its a BIG deal for some... but how can anyone tell the difference?
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#17
shaky hand + no VR = poor
shaky hand + VR = good
stable hand + no VR = very good
stable hand + VR = excellence.

whether ur hand shaky or stable, VR will still help you somehow. they give u extra mileage.
 

Last edited:

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#19
i never said it was :bsmilie:
but honestly, hand-holding a 1/10s shot isn't exactly easy to do:sweat:
Thats were VR comes in to save the day.
1/10s is quite pushing it, even with VR, don't you think? :bsmilie:

Normally, when shooting people, even if VR does clean up camera-shake, people also do move, hence it is not really feasible to get a slow VR lens for such usage, unless everything you shoot (or a large percentage of your subject choice) is immobile.
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#20
Looks like there are quite a few newbies got problem in hand holding tele lenses.

I adopt the correct holding, aiming and shooting techniques, thanks to the FOC training during NS.

I can do hand holding my 300mm + 1.4xTC = 420mm in digital, which is equivalent to 630mm in the film format.

Dunno if there is anyone keen in learning......
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom