Reading mode: Light Dark

18-200 or 80-200 ?

Go to last post
K

kipourax

Leading Member
Messages
736
Reaction score
0
Location
Montréal, CA
Sorry if this has been debated before (I've search but found nothing ... but I did search really quick ) but i'm curious to why the hype over the 18-200 ? It seems to me that the 80-200 would be better (not pricewise of course, but hey who's counting ;-) since it has 2.8 over the whole focal lenght.

Can someone explain the hype, the main difference and if possible the technical aspects while using each lens (examples showing this difference would be a sweet way to start 2006 :-)

Thx !

BTW: I learn so much about photography and techniques here and this forum, along with the D50/D70 forum is a great ressource for newbies like me.

--
--
Kipourax
Nikon D50 18-70mm
http://kipexmachina.blogspot.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
 
Many people want a lens that 'does it all'. The 18-200 is a lens people can use stand-alone, travel with, etc. and not be stuck switching lenses all the time.

It can act as a wide angle, mid range, and zoom, all in one. Plus, it’s reasonably priced considering the fact that it covers such a wide range.

However, due to my shooting style, and needs, I’m 100% with you:

JUST SAY NO TO SLOW!

Every time I purchase a slow lens for LESS money, I end up regretting it. The 18-200 is 5.6 at 200mm. I know the VR helps. But, this is still slooooowwww and you would probably need to shoot at f8 to start in the sweet spot.

For me, no more lenses slower than f2.8 (with the exception of the 12-24 I hope to buy someday).

JUST SAY NO TO SLOW!
 
You had to do a search?? ;-) The answer is in the numbers. It goes down to 18mm with VR. What other reason would anyone need? Most people aren't photographers but "capturers", who would be be happier to capture the moment rather than worry about perfect sharpness, contrast, etc.
 
A good example of "capturers" vs "photographers" are those few famous pictures on (Omaha?) beach on D-Day by that famous photographer (Capra?). They are out of focus and would flunk a high school photog. class but are considered great because they "captured" the moment. I forget why exactly but there was some foul up so only a few pictures ended up usable and those were of very poor quality and yet they still "wow" us today.

I want to capture the moments of my family and for that the D50 set on automatic and the 18-200 works great. I can fool around with other lenses and settings for "photography" but for catching the moment I need to point and shoot.

Precision shooting wins shooting contests, but rapid target acquisition and snap shots bring home the venison!
 
After watching the opening sequence to the movie "Saving Private Ryan" on IMAX when it came out, I can fully understand why some of the camera settings might not have been correct. I'm sure the camera was the least of the guys worries at the time. The fact that the camera even survived is the true miracle. :)
D50russ said:
A good example of "capturers" vs "photographers" are those few
famous pictures on (Omaha?) beach on D-Day by that famous
photographer (Capra?). They are out of focus and would flunk a high
school photog. class but are considered great because they
"captured" the moment. I forget why exactly but there was some
foul up so only a few pictures ended up usable and those were of
very poor quality and yet they still "wow" us today.

I want to capture the moments of my family and for that the D50 set
on automatic and the 18-200 works great. I can fool around with
other lenses and settings for "photography" but for catching the
moment I need to point and shoot.

Precision shooting wins shooting contests, but rapid target
acquisition and snap shots bring home the venison!
Click to expand...
 
If you want to carry around a tripod, a remote release, focus on something over 6 feet away and 2.5 lbs worth of lens to get really excellent techinical results then get the 80-200.

If you want to remain fairly mobile, focus under 2.5 ft, have a bigger range of focal lengths, handhold and get good to very good technical results then get the 18-200 VR.

Different horses for different courses. Know what you need and then buy it. The 80-200 would be completely worthless if you need to shoot at 60mm while if your shooting sports from 25 feet away and need a fast lens then the 18-200 Vr is not the right lens.
--
http://www.pbase.com/tfultz
 
I would buy the 18-200 because I shoot a lot of receptions with flash, so I don't need F2.8. I tend to shoot between 5.6 & f11 anyway. It allows me to use the same lens all day long. The focal length range is worth the price @ $750. The added VR2 is just a bonus.

However, if you're shooting sports like football or something without flash in low light, then the 80-200mm f2.8 would be 10 times better. If you have the $$'s, the 70-200 F2.8 VR for about $1700 would be the best for Sports.
 
It all depends on what you're shooting and where and what you can afford. There's no one answer that's right for everyone.

I recently got the 18-200 and, what with lousy weather and a lousy cold, I really haven't had an opportunity to do anything with it. Today I got outside in the back yard and took some photos of my dogs in the fresh snow. I found that the range of this lens makes informal photography like that easier. When I use the 70-200 I sometimes find it restricting because the subject gets too close and I have to back up. (This would be the same for the 80-200.) Today all I had to do was zoom wider when a dog was coming toward me, his face full of fresh snow and his tail wagging furiously.

Not a tripod situation, not a situation where I was carefully composing each photo, but possibly a situation that might result in an entry for a dog club photo contest later this year.
--
--Bob
 
david tittermary said:
true but since he was considering a 80-200..... plus I can think of
a few lens that cover that range just fine:)

dt
Click to expand...
And since I have a 18-70 I don't realy need a 18-79 coverage ( 9mm loss never killed anyone )

But my question was mostly: What is the hype over the 18-200 ? Is it because of the VR. Seems everyone is considering/lusting/buying this lens. Same goes for the 70-200 VR that sparks so much desire.

My basic photographic needs are for travel photography, landscape and wildlife. I think a 80-200 with a teleconverter would most probably suit my needs better than the 18-200 (ex.: birds). For landscape I have already experimented with the 18-70 and it suits my needs fine. I would complete my kit with the Nikkor 24mm.

You can go check my website for examples of pictures I take.

Thx all for the feedback

--
Kipourax

Nikon D50 18-70mm + 50 f1.8
http://kipexmachina.blogspot.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
 
Although there's nothing like the capability to limit DOF at 2.8 and some of the low light / faster shutter capabilties (which can be accomodated by changing ISO and appropriate NR software, if needed, btw), I find my 24-120 (and soon-to-be-acquired 18-200) on my camera 70+% of the time, unless I know I'm out for a serious scenic / nature work with the 70-200, 80-400, or 12-24.

First, you'll always have a lens on board that can capture the image. Second, you'll limit lens changes and dust issues. Third, you'll have a weight point that you can carry comfortably all day (my D2h with 2.8 glass or the 80-400 on board gets to my old bod after a while). Fourth, you can leave on a trip with less gear and still know you can cover the spectrum. Fifth, in your case, the absence of VR on the 80-200 will dictate tripod often, and in my case, I'm not a tripod fan (too lazy?). A VR lens lets me get those great blurred shots of moving water, etc. that normally couldn't be handheld. And if you're considering the non-AFS version of the 80-200, don't expect to do lots of action work unless you have a CAM 2000 body. The 18-200 should always get you focused.

Despite the sharpness / contrast criticisms of the 24-120 VR (and the 18-200 seems to be much better based on reports so far), I've still captured crisp, contrasty images that blow up just fine to 11x14 with my "feeble" (great!) 4mp D2h body. I expect the 18-200 will typically be the lens I grab first from now on.

Of course, the big glass looks better on the camera, but I'm usually not into photographic "fashion".

Seriously, 2.8 has two major advantages: If limiting DOF is a real priority for you, you may want the sharpness of the 80-200 at wider apertures. The 18-200 won't perform in the same league until at least f/8, and for closer images you're never really at 200mm with its design, so DOF will not be as narrow anyhow. And if you want a TC to get to 280 or 400 with the lens, the 80-200 is the only way to go. Cropping is simple in digital, however, especially if you've got enough pixels...
--
Jerry
 
I believe the photo lab screwed up when processing Capa's film from the invation.
--
Pete Biro
 
The hype is that it is an 18-200mm VR Lens.

I too have a 24-70 f2.8 and a 100-300 f4. If I am going out FOR THE PURPOSE of taking pictures exclusively, you can bet that one of these lenses will be on the camera. However, for the 80 percent of the time, that I am just carrying a camera in the course of doing something else (out with the family, etc), this lens is completely indispensable. I cannot imagine going to Disneyland, or the beach for example, and trying to carry both of the aforementioned lenses to make sure I have everything covered. I am there primarily for fun and not photograpy. However, some of the best family memories come from pictures of such times, and the 18-200 vr is the lens for the job in that situation, without a doubt.

That's probably why the hype on this lens, at least it is for me!

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top