nikon 18-55mm & 55-200mm vs 18-70mm & 70-300mm


Status
Not open for further replies.

Shedinja

New Member
Apr 14, 2007
68
0
0
34
The Land of the Free
#1
hi to all fotomen...

im juz wondering which combination is better 18-55mm & 55-200mm VR or 18-70mm & 70-300mm VR. wat r the pro & con for both this combination??

Regards
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#2
i'd go for the 18-70mm because its a more useful range than the 18-55mm but it costs more. i think the 70-300mm VR is a better simply because of the VR it comes in very useful when your extended all the way out.. thats what i think, but then again, it costs much more that the other combo..
 

Dec 7, 2006
725
0
0
west side!
#5
imo, 18-70mm & 70-300mm VR is better.

18-70 useful range at both extremes. at 70 is a nice length for potrait.
with the 18-70 u can manual override focus and u get focal readings too.

this combo the cost is higher. and for street pictures, both combos are gonna produce the same type of pic, unless u gonna pixel peek. the 18-70mm & 70-300mm will produce better corners and ease of use.

18-55mm & 55-200mm VR, this is cool and cheap, pictures are alrite too.
 

Shedinja

New Member
Apr 14, 2007
68
0
0
34
The Land of the Free
#6
wat do u mean by pixel peek???
how's the review of 55-200mm VR?? any news so far...
cost currently i have this 18-55mm lens.
so was thinking of getting juz the 55-200mm VR lens..
if i wanna get 18-70mm, it has the same wide distance.
like no point of getting the same range of 18mm again.

my 2cents...
 

Dec 7, 2006
725
0
0
west side!
#7
well since u got the 18-55, might as well get the 55-200.

pixel peep, u enlarge the picture at 100% and look for sharpness/contrast/ca/etc etc...
if just shootoing for the web, no issue with any combo of lens.
 

konahead

New Member
Apr 13, 2005
110
0
0
kovan
#10
based on my somewhat limited research whilst preparing to buy my 1st DSLR, i'd say 18-55 + 55-200 for those more on a budget...the other combo is more than double the price but gives that additional reach tho...if you can afford it, by all means of course...

;)
 

s598719

New Member
Oct 27, 2006
592
0
0
#12
try the Tamron 18-250mm. budget lens.
Hmm,.... why go for combo of 18-55mm & 55-200mm or 18-70mm & 70-300mm, when u have 18-250mm?

Picture quality? Does anyone have proof that there is significant differences? Any photos to show? This sort of thing is like high end hi-fi; u have to listen to know the diff.
 

kyo86sg

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2006
769
0
16
#14
Tamron 18-250mm how much is this lens cost? :(
 

tkbonz

New Member
Dec 11, 2006
990
0
0
Singapore
#15
I'm currently using a 18-70 and a 55-200VR setup. It is a cheap and effective combination. The 55mm provides a slightly better field of view than the 70-300mm. The VR comes in VERY useful in lower light conditions (it never replaces a tripod in low light though) and at the tele end. On top of that I can attest to the quality of the new 55-200VR lens, a good buy! For the 18-70, no need to say, it is a better lens than the 18-55 overall.

Price wise, both will add up to around $700 (2nd hand 18-70 and a brand new 55-200VR) The only disadvantage is the lack of the 200-300 range, which for me is not a hassle cause i hardly use that range.

For tamron...I've tried a 18-200 lens before but sold it off in a short notice due to the noticeable (and very obvious) image quality. It is no where as sharp as my kit lens, the picture look flat and the auto focusing is a pain! However for the price, it is undoubtly a good lens for the budget user especially with the range.

Hope this helps!
 

spuroo

New Member
Nov 25, 2006
191
0
0
#16
I'm currently using a 18-70 and a 55-200VR setup. It is a cheap and effective combination. The 55mm provides a slightly better field of view than the 70-300mm. The VR comes in VERY useful in lower light conditions (it never replaces a tripod in low light though) and at the tele end. On top of that I can attest to the quality of the new 55-200VR lens, a good buy! For the 18-70, no need to say, it is a better lens than the 18-55 overall.

Price wise, both will add up to around $700 (2nd hand 18-70 and a brand new 55-200VR) The only disadvantage is the lack of the 200-300 range, which for me is not a hassle cause i hardly use that range.

For tamron...I've tried a 18-200 lens before but sold it off in a short notice due to the noticeable (and very obvious) image quality. It is no where as sharp as my kit lens, the picture look flat and the auto focusing is a pain! However for the price, it is undoubtly a good lens for the budget user especially with the range.

Hope this helps!

Hi,

Wats the price for 55-200VR right now?

Thks
 

Sep 5, 2006
75
0
0
#17
If i'm not wrong, one combi is also lighter and more compact.

As a girl with small hands and arms, that's really really important for me.;p
I currently own the 18-55mm. It's pretty versatile & enough (cos there'd always be better/more powerful lens).

Looking to get the 55-200mm vr cos it's light, cheap and VR!

I cannot fathom shooting with anything that weighs over a kg!:sweat:
 

tkbonz

New Member
Dec 11, 2006
990
0
0
Singapore
#18
I got mine at Cathay (peninsula) for S$400 with GST. This was the best price i got among all the shops at that time.

This is definately a great buy for ppl looking for a low end budget zoom lens. I agree that the 70-300VR is better but...gulp...the price is more than twice the 55-200VR. Unless you die die need 300mm, then try to get 2nd hand bah.
 

Shedinja

New Member
Apr 14, 2007
68
0
0
34
The Land of the Free
#20
ok rite now my lens is 18-70mm. wat do u guys really advice..
get 55-200mm or 70-300mm. how much different is the pic quality for both.
cost does not affect me. budget bout 1.5K

really do not want to waste money on buying the wrong lens..

keep the comment coming
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom