nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???


Status
Not open for further replies.

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#1
hi guys, i need opinion from board members here.

okay here is the issue. i dont have lot of money and i ve been saving up. here we go, now i am ready to spend some of my saving.

I WANT TO GET 1 LENS. and i dont know which one to choose. is it 18-200mm VR nikon or 105mm VR macro.

okay, here what i wanna know from this lens

1) for 18-200mm , i know this is supposed to be a very convenient lens but some people complain that this is not sharp. IS IT SHARP??? is it sharper than 18-55mm standard lens kit???

by the way, my camera is nikon d40.

2) kenrockwell stated that nikon 18-200mm can basically substitute 105mm VR macro since the macro function in nikon 18-200mm is excellent, IS THIS TRUE??

3) how is 105mm VR macro?? is it good?? is it worth the price???

WHAT I REALLY WANT IS MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY. i am just thinking if 18-200mm can replace 105mm VR , i might as well just get 18-200m since that lens is so convenient.

this is a somewhat overwhelming question. I need your opinion and please help me guys. thanks so much : ) i appreciate yall's answers
 

mcn

New Member
Oct 6, 2005
1,265
0
0
#2
what you really one is macro photography, then the choice is obviously the
afs 105mm f2.8 vr
 

chanxj

New Member
Sep 4, 2006
650
0
0
Singapore......
www.xjavprod.com
#3
Sometime KenRockwell's comments are funny. its very obvious the 105 afs vr will be much better than the 18-200 for macro specifically.
 

MaZaCA

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
166
0
0
#4
if u really want to be in macro photog, get the macro lens!

you also mentioned you do not have lots of money and want to get 1 lens, maybe you would like to consider Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di? more affordable in term of price and believe to be a better macro lens... unless u strictly wanted Nikon...:)
 

Yapster

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2006
2,318
1
38
38
Pioneer
www.flickr.com
#5
If you want macro, 105mm VR for sure.
18-200 cannot do macro. Can do close up or not, i not sure and i don't think so.
And if you are comparing them at focal length of 105mm, 18-200 VR's sharpness, colours and bokeh simply cannot fight.
but 18-200 VR is good for convenience.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#6
what you really one is macro photography, then the choice is obviously the
afs 105mm f2.8 vr
i know but who knows, maybe 18-200 can do macro shots too. that would save my money and it will be a better choice obviously


Sometime KenRockwell's comments are funny. its very obvious the 105 afs vr will be much better than the 18-200 for macro specifically.
much better?? do you have experience with both of these lenses??



if u really want to be in macro photog, get the macro lens!

you also mentioned you do not have lots of money and want to get 1 lens, maybe you would like to consider Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di? more affordable in term of price and believe to be a better macro lens... unless u strictly wanted Nikon...:)
i will research that tamron 90mm, but i wanna ask u this, is 105mm vr an excellent lens??? what u think?


If you want macro, 105mm VR for sure.
18-200 cannot do macro. Can do close up or not, i not sure and i don't think so.
And if you are comparing them at focal length of 105mm, 18-200 VR's sharpness, colours and bokeh simply cannot fight.
but 18-200 VR is good for convenience.
do you have 18-200??? can you tell me about its quality?
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#7
i know but who knows, maybe 18-200 can do macro shots too. that would save my money and it will be a better choice obviously
if u have to ask this, i think u probably be doing just casual close-up photography rather than macro. there is no comparison between 18-200VR and 105VR when it comes to macro.
 

moby

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
304
0
0
#8
Nothing can beat a macro lens when it comes to macro photography.

I think when Ken mentioned about macro, it is more just close up photography of flowers like roses etc.

It u really want to do photography of macro objects such as insects and inside of flowers, then go for the 105 VR lah.

if you want a lens that is convenient for travels etc, then go for the 18 - 200 VR. :)

Have not enough money..........go for one first then go for the other in another 1 year.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#9
okay guys, i am leaning toward 105mm vr now

however, is there any other lens you guys recommend??? i mean macro lens ofcourse

or 105mm vr is the best on the market now.

i read from website, that i have to be away about 15cm using this lens to get 1:1 magnification. Is it hard to get 1:1 magnification in the real world using this lens??
since 15cm seems too close for me and i think it will scare the insects with such a close distance.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#10
Nothing can beat a macro lens when it comes to macro photography.

I think when Ken mentioned about macro, it is more just close up photography of flowers like roses etc.

It u really want to do photography of macro objects such as insects and inside of flowers, then go for the 105 VR lah.

if you want a lens that is convenient for travels etc, then go for the 18 - 200 VR. :)

Have not enough money..........go for one first then go for the other in another 1 year.
i think this is what i am gonna do. buy macro lens and then go to 18-200 mm.

hey is 18-200mm any good???
 

attap seed

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2006
588
0
16
41
#11
nikon 18-200, i ve never personally use one myself.

but a few top salon competitors i know, use this lens. so, i'd assume that if they are happy w it, u, most probably, will.

the 18-200 is a general purpose lens. the 105 micro a specialised one.

they are very different. so, any comparison is difficult.
 

Last edited:

Daedalus Trent

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2008
2,291
0
0
Singapore, east-ish
#12
I shall cause some trouble and say the word : Sigma 150mm Macro :devil:

loads of excellent reviews of this lens and the extra 45mm will give you more working distance.

Doesn't have VR though, but thats fine since VR doesn't work for macro photography anyway.
Though, yes, the VR will be useful in other situations :think:


Btw, as much as i like Ken Rockwell's review, take his reviews with a ladle of salt :bsmilie: I have no idea how a 18-200VR can be on par with the 105mm micro!:sweat:
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#13
Totally different applications...

how to compare?? :dunno:

All-rounder (jack of all trades, master of none) 18-200 VR

Specialised (for specific usage on macro) 105 VR
 

mcn

New Member
Oct 6, 2005
1,265
0
0
#16
WOW, OK. Thank you.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#18
I shall cause some trouble and say the word : Sigma 150mm Macro :devil:

loads of excellent reviews of this lens and the extra 45mm will give you more working distance.

Doesn't have VR though, but thats fine since VR doesn't work for macro photography anyway.
Though, yes, the VR will be useful in other situations :think:


Btw, as much as i like Ken Rockwell's review, take his reviews with a ladle of salt :bsmilie: I have no idea how a 18-200VR can be on par with the 105mm micro!:sweat:
i am gonna take a look at the sigma 150mm :)
thanks man for letting me know. by the way, can this autofocus with my d40??
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom