Nikon 18-70 vs. Nikon 28-200 G on D100

May be it is wrong to compare this two lens,but anyway,somebody may can give any recomendations?

I have both, they make a great two lens outfit. Contrary to popular forum belief, the overlap is a good thing, it saves you from having to switch lenses too much.

I have both and on my D100 the 18-70 is a little sharper and focuses much faster, to be expected, but if I had to buy only one it would be the 28-200 for sheer verstatility and value for money.

As a general purpose walk about lens the 28-200 is terrific and is on my D100 most of the time so if I have to grab it quick and go I have the range to cope with most situations.

I like the the 18-70 image quality and the wide end is superb, again good value for a budget lens.

Regards.

Brian.

Do you see noticable difference in quality?

Yes the difference is noticeable with the 18-70 being better in image quality but the compromise in using the 28-200 for a lightweight compact wide focal range lens is worth the slight loss in quality if you do not wish to carry more than one lens, the image quality difference is not so obvious in prints than it is magnified on a monitor.

I own the 18-70 and a Sigma 70 - 200 and a 1.4 tele, with those in my bag I get good range and quality for my money but the downside is having to carry them and change lenses to suit the distance, so when I just want to grab my D100 and go light I use the 28-200 in a Lowepro AW 65 bag.

For quality or low light I have a goood set of primes, all Nikon, 35 f2 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8, they are always in my big bag with the 18-7- and 70-200 + 1.4 tele.

If you are looking for a general purpose walkabout lens the 28-200 is terrific, if you are looking for no compromise image quality then you will be collecting lots of expensive glass forever

(expensive is relative but to me as an amateur it is all expesive but worth it)

Regards.

Brian.

My probem(?) is that I already have 28-200 and love its wide range.

Two problems: first I have 80-200/2.8 and quality VERY different.

Second: 28 in digital not enough wide. On the other hand I have Sigma 15-30 but as most of us I dont like to change the lens.

I think about 18-70 as main lens in case it can give me noticeable higher quality than 28-200.

I know there is other options, like for example 17-55/2.8, but it is now bit expensive for me.

Thanks for reply!

Hi Leonid,

I have both the 18-70 and the 28-200G (which is my fiancee's preferred lens since she hates changing lenses). The 28-200 is not bad, but the 18-70 is noticeably sharper and focuses superfast! In fact, I believe if you get a sharp copy of the 18-70 you probably won't notice any significant improvements in resolution even with a 17-55 2.8 on a 6MP sensor - it's that good

If you have the 80-200 and don't mind lugging it around all the time, get the 18-70 and you've got everything covered

Cheers

Mike

Leonid Roujinsky said:

My probem(?) is that I already have 28-200 and love its wide range.

Two problems: first I have 80-200/2.8 and quality VERY different.

Second: 28 in digital not enough wide. On the other hand I have
Sigma 15-30 but as most of us I dont like to change the lens.

I think about 18-70 as main lens in case it can give me noticeable
higher quality than 28-200.

I know there is other options, like for example 17-55/2.8, but it
is now bit expensive for me.

Thanks for reply!

Click to expand...

--in normal day light, you will not regret the 28-200. It is so small and light, you put it in a belt pouch and forget you have it with you.. My copy is very good, I routinely swap the 18-70, or the 17-55 and the 28-200 while walking around...Given decent light, you have to look VERY hard to pick out the 28-200... it is very good when you get a good one.. My first one was good.. the other nice thing about all Nikon glass is that the color and contrast mostly match across the range..... sure there are some that are magical in color or contrast, but by and large they all match well.. One time, just once I put the sigma that comptetes in range with the nikon 28-200 on and shot an outside event... THOSE images stood out like a sore wart... the color was so different from the nikons..and lots of fall off from the center AND the 2.8 lasted untill you even thought of zooming. It went back and I got the 28-200 and havent looked back.. I all fairness to Sigma, I may have gotten a bad copy, I did buy a sigma 70-300 apo II super duper what ever for a pittance.. It is a VERY capable lens and I normally dont mix it with the other nikons... Some day I shall own the nikon 70-200 vr or similiar....
MATTinNE_FL

I agree. My 18-70 is noticeably sharper than my 28-200. But, my 28-200 has an autofocusing problem and I'm sending it in for warranty work. If I focus manually it's pretty sharp, but still, the 18-70 is still a good deal sharper. When the 28-200 is fixed, I'll sell it in order to save up for the 70-200 VR (or the 80-200 ED IF if I can't hold out that long). I'll use my 70-300 ED in the mean time for the longer focal lengths, since it's does pretty good out to 200 (better than the 28-200 at 200).