Thank you for the Welcome
I will get a used D200 together with a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF and I m looking at the moment for a second lens. The Nikon 70-300mm VR was recommended to me instead of the 18-200mm. I heard already from some friends that the 18-200mm was ok, but compared to the 70-300mm its quite a difference in image quality. They also recommend me to buy afterwards a 18-70mm to complete my set.
I would like to know which experience you made with the 18-200mm. Is it is money worth or is it better to go for a 18-70mm and a 70-300mm
Best Regards
Marc
P.s. add the Sigma lens description
Edited by Marc Weber on Oct 17, 2007 at 08:45 AM GMT
I think you might be better off with the 18-70 instead of the 24-70 Sigma because you'll miss the wide angle - I was surprised how much of a difference those 6mm make, so I decided to keep my 18-70 over selling it and getting that Sigma.
I can't really comment on the 18-200 or the 70-300. Do you need the reach of the 300mm? How important is it to travel light with only one lens - that's where the 18-200 really shines.
The reviews here on FM aren't that great. First off, as you have already noticed, many things (mostly Nikon) are missing. The Canon 1Dmk3 and 40D were up before the camera was even released, but the year-old 18-200mm is still missing in action.
Secondly, many to most of the reviews here are oddly enough written by people with under 5 posts total. So take what you read with a grain of salt.
As mentioned, if you have a gear questions, feel free to just ask.
As you say, there's quite a big difference in image quality between the 70-300VR and 18-200. I tried an 18-200 recently and only lasted 10 shots with it due to its lack of sharpness, purple fringing and considerable barrel distortion. Other people have praised it (which is why I tried it) so maybe I got a lemon. I'm guessing I didn't though. It's much heavier than it looks and is beautifully built.
The 70-300VR is also well built but feels quite light for its size. I'm on my second one of these now (I dropped the first (d'oh)) and the image quality really gives the 70-200 a run for its money.
I have to say my 18-70 is no great performer but having tried the 18-200 as a potential holiday lens, my all-in-one kit has reverted firmly to the 18-70 plus the 70-300VR.
I have all three the 18-70DX , 70-300VR and the 18-200VR The photo of the Deer was taken with the 18-200VR. I mostly use the 18-200 on my D200 and the other two with my D80. I like all three, however when on holidays I pack the D80 and the 18-200VR.
Aside from the image quality of the 18-200, which is best described as "adequate", its zoom range and small size make it a great carry lens. The 18-200 range covers 90%+ of what I use in a day. The small size attracts much less attention than the big pro glass, which makes it much easier to capture candid moments, and few folks realize the reach of this little lens on an APS-C camera. The VR works beautifully--just don't expect magic from it!
One thing I've never seen mentioned is the fine close-focus ability of this lens. At 200mm, the lens focuses to around 12 inches, which is better than most consumer zooms that lay claim to macro ability.
By "adequate" IQ, I mean that this is not pro glass. If you go pixel peeping, you'll find weaknesses. The VR can cause artifacting when shooting at higher shutter speeds--sometimes as slow as 1/250 (this is common to all the VR lenses I've used, but the VRII seems to artifact at slower speeds than the older VR). For the majority of uses, the IQ will be fine. The complex distortion makes this a very poor choice for architectural or stitched panoramic work. If you intend to do this sort of work, start saving for pro glass.
I rarely use this lens for paid work, but it has come in handy on occasion and I've sold images from it. For general carry use, at parties, and long hiking and skiing trips, this is a great lens for me.
I've never gotten my hands on the 70-300 VRII, so have no comments on it. But I'd much rather have the short end of the 18-200 range than the long end of the 70-300. When shooting with my pro glass, I'm frequently changing glass to cover the range from 17-~105mm. If people, bugs, and landscape are your thing, the 18-200 will cover most of the range you'll need. If you intend to focus on wildlife, definitely go with the longer lens.
If possible, go to a large camera store and try several different examples of whichever lens you choose. Nikon's QC seems to be more lax in this price range than usual--which largely explains the range of comments and critiques of the image quality you'll read here.
Brent: I'd go with the 18-70. Throwing another $750 at a lens that largely duplicates the range you already have, and has no better than acceptable IQ makes no sense. For about $300 you can get the 18-70 and have the full range. I'll bet the 18-70 spends more time on the front of the camera--this is a great range.
If at all possible, this would be a good time to start looking at a professional quality lens: The 17-55 f2.8. The difference will knock your socks off!
Hey, Louis--same here. Cloudy the last couple of days with torrential rain this morning. But the "full moon window" doesn't begin until the 23, with the best days either side of the 25th. Keep yer fingers crossed!
