Nikon mount 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC (Motorized)


ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#1
Hi guys is it worth getting this lens at $300,any users of this lens any feedback will be appreciated,thks
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#4
I think the simga 18-200 is only around 400+ new.

Image IQ is so so. There is no vibration reduction, and max aperture at 200mm is 6.3. So be prepared for bad low light performance, and some major handshake when using this lens at 150-200mm..

But for what it's worth, it is cheap.
 

ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#5
I think the simga 18-200 is only around 400+ new.

Image IQ is so so. There is no vibration reduction, and max aperture at 200mm is 6.3. So be prepared for bad low light performance, and some major handshake when using this lens at 150-200mm..

But for what it's worth, it is cheap.
Ok noted thks bro but is it worth to get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR or AF-S Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED if i were to go for zoom & will this 2 lens IQ be better than the sigma one & what abt low light compare with the sigma,thks
 

Irvine

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
36
North? South? East? West?
#6
Ok noted thks bro but is it worth to get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR or AF-S Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED if i were to go for zoom & will this 2 lens IQ be better than the sigma one & what abt low light compare with the sigma,thks
70-300 is better in terms of build, plus it can also be used on FX bodies without issues, unlike the 55-300 which is a DX only lens. both r slightly better in low light considering their max apertures at 300mm is wider than the sigma 18-200 (f/5.6 vs f/6.3) but still not really ideal for low light even with VR since u need higher shutter speeds to shoot without causing blur due to handshake as compared to when u normally shoot at shorter focal lengths in low light.

furthermore, superzooms r known to haf poorer IQ as compared to a standard zoom. so the 70-300 is definitely better, but u lose the convenience the sigma 18-200 provides.
 

ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#7
70-300 is better in terms of build, plus it can also be used on FX bodies without issues, unlike the 55-300 which is a DX only lens. both r slightly better in low light considering their max apertures at 300mm is wider than the sigma 18-200 (f/5.6 vs f/6.3) but still not really ideal for low light even with VR since u need higher shutter speeds to shoot without causing blur due to handshake as compared to when u normally shoot at shorter focal lengths in low light.

furthermore, superzooms r known to haf poorer IQ as compared to a standard zoom. so the 70-300 is definitely better, but u lose the convenience the sigma 18-200 provides.
Noted thks bro for ur detail explaination,cheers .....
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#8
Ok noted thks bro but is it worth to get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR or AF-S Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED if i were to go for zoom & will this 2 lens IQ be better than the sigma one & what abt low light compare with the sigma,thks
Worth it or not, really depends on yourself and your needs.

If I am you, given the choice, I will go for the 55-300VR to match with the kit lens if I do not intend to move to fullframe. Do note that the 70-300VR is about twice the price of the 55-300VR. IQ is around the same for both lenses. Just that 55-300 is meant for crop frame APS-C sensor camera bodies. the 70-300VR will work on both cropped and fullframe cameras.
 

coolthought

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2008
2,310
1
0
#9
70-300 is better in terms of build, plus it can also be used on FX bodies without issues, unlike the 55-300 which is a DX only lens. both r slightly better in low light considering their max apertures at 300mm is wider than the sigma 18-200 (f/5.6 vs f/6.3) but still not really ideal for low light even with VR since u need higher shutter speeds to shoot without causing blur due to handshake as compared to when u normally shoot at shorter focal lengths in low light.

furthermore, superzooms r known to haf poorer IQ as compared to a standard zoom. so the 70-300 is definitely better, but u lose the convenience the sigma 18-200 provides.
I am not too sure about 70-300 has a better built than the 55-300. Both are plastic barrel and metal mount. Same goes for the number of optical elements. 17 elements / 11 groups (2 ED glasses). Same generation of VR. Same number of Diaphragm Blade, 9. The obvious differences are the weight, diameter and overall size.

Generally, what I gathered from the internet and it seems to be true. In performance, the difference between the 2 lenses is the focusing. Other than the obvious lack of A/M in the 55-300. The 70-300 has a much faster and accurate autofocusing.

There are lots of mentioned that the 70-300 has better IQ than the 55-300. This is not surprising given that one is a designated FX lens while the other is a DX. However, these are just judgment based personal experience. These 2 lenses are built very similarly other than size. I can't see any reason why one will have a better IQ than the other. So far I am having a problem looking for a reputable site that do a good proper review. These are a couple of links of review of the 2 lenses.
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-55-300mm-vr-review
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-70-300mm-vr-review/2
Other forum discussion comparing the 2.
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XZZn
I am still looking. Anyone has any suggestion?
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#10
I am not too sure about 70-300 has a better built than the 55-300. Both are plastic barrel and metal mount. Same goes for the number of optical elements. 17 elements / 11 groups (2 ED glasses). Same generation of VR. Same number of Diaphragm Blade, 9. The obvious differences are the weight, diameter and overall size.

Generally, what I gathered from the internet and it seems to be true. In performance, the difference between the 2 lenses is the focusing. Other than the obvious lack of A/M in the 55-300. The 70-300 has a much faster and accurate autofocusing.

There are lots of mentioned that the 70-300 has better IQ than the 55-300. This is not surprising given that one is a designated FX lens while the other is a DX. However, these are just judgment based personal experience. These 2 lenses are built very similarly other than size. I can't see any reason why one will have a better IQ than the other. So far I am having a problem looking for a reputable site that do a good proper review. These are a couple of links of review of the 2 lenses.
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-55-300mm-vr-review
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-70-300mm-vr-review/2
Other forum discussion comparing the 2.
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XZZn
I am still looking. Anyone has any suggestion?
One huge way the 2 lenses differ is the implementation of the zoom/focus rings.
The 55-300's focus ring is all the way out the front, AND the front rotates when you focus.
70-300VR's zoom ring is massive, and smooth to operate.

This can also be considered part of 'build quality'. The same way that a BMW's and Toyota's doors are both made of steel (well, excluding the fancy all-aluminium models ;) ), but the difference in 'build quality' is often appreciable.

Add to that the fact that the 70-300VR has full-time MF override (i.e. M/A instead of M), and I think the price difference is justifiable.
And we haven't even gotten to the fact that 1 is DX and the other is FX :)
 

ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#11
Worth it or not, really depends on yourself and your needs.

If I am you, given the choice, I will go for the 55-300VR to match with the kit lens if I do not intend to move to fullframe. Do note that the 70-300VR is about twice the price of the 55-300VR. IQ is around the same for both lenses. Just that 55-300 is meant for crop frame APS-C sensor camera bodies. the 70-300VR will work on both cropped and fullframe cameras.
Liao gai liao gai but full frame body is at least $2k+ right .....
 

ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#12
I am not too sure about 70-300 has a better built than the 55-300. Both are plastic barrel and metal mount. Same goes for the number of optical elements. 17 elements / 11 groups (2 ED glasses). Same generation of VR. Same number of Diaphragm Blade, 9. The obvious differences are the weight, diameter and overall size.

Generally, what I gathered from the internet and it seems to be true. In performance, the difference between the 2 lenses is the focusing. Other than the obvious lack of A/M in the 55-300. The 70-300 has a much faster and accurate autofocusing.

There are lots of mentioned that the 70-300 has better IQ than the 55-300. This is not surprising given that one is a designated FX lens while the other is a DX. However, these are just judgment based personal experience. These 2 lenses are built very similarly other than size. I can't see any reason why one will have a better IQ than the other. So far I am having a problem looking for a reputable site that do a good proper review. These are a couple of links of review of the 2 lenses.
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-55-300mm-vr-review
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-70-300mm-vr-review/2
Other forum discussion comparing the 2.
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XZZn
I am still looking. Anyone has any suggestion?
Thks for the link .....
 

ly1968

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
108
0
0
#13
One huge way the 2 lenses differ is the implementation of the zoom/focus rings.
The 55-300's focus ring is all the way out the front, AND the front rotates when you focus.
70-300VR's zoom ring is massive, and smooth to operate.

This can also be considered part of 'build quality'. The same way that a BMW's and Toyota's doors are both made of steel (well, excluding the fancy all-aluminium models ;) ), but the difference in 'build quality' is often appreciable.

Add to that the fact that the 70-300VR has full-time MF override (i.e. M/A instead of M), and I think the price difference is justifiable.
And we haven't even gotten to the fact that 1 is DX and the other is FX :)
Thks bro if i were to upgrade to D7000 tis lens will still fix right (Is D7000 a full frame cam ?),thks
 

coolthought

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2008
2,310
1
0
#14
One huge way the 2 lenses differ is the implementation of the zoom/focus rings.
The 55-300's focus ring is all the way out the front, AND the front rotates when you focus.
70-300VR's zoom ring is massive, and smooth to operate.

This can also be considered part of 'build quality'. The same way that a BMW's and Toyota's doors are both made of steel (well, excluding the fancy all-aluminium models ;) ), but the difference in 'build quality' is often appreciable.

Add to that the fact that the 70-300VR has full-time MF override (i.e. M/A instead of M), and I think the price difference is justifiable.
And we haven't even gotten to the fact that 1 is DX and the other is FX :)
noted and thanks. agree. price difference is definitely justifiable.
for a dx body user, I am still trying to find anything that "weigh" both of the lenses for value for money.
 

Top Bottom