18-200vr vs 80-200 f2.8

I have a d70 with 18-70 kit lens and in a need for longer zoom.

Confused with the choices available. Some say that above optical 3x the quality deteriorates. Also kindly suggest a good portrait lens or is my 18-70 kit lens good enough for this purpose ?

Thanks for yr time

yesterday I sold my 80-200 2.8 because I have just received my 18-200..

Why did I switch ?

The 80-200 is faster (2.8) but so much heavier..
hardly impossible to get good pics handheld..
If you travel, forget about the 80-200 !
IQ is very good..

but... the 18-200 has, of course a wider range, is way lighter and smaller, and most of all it has vr !
beleive me, this function is not a gadget... it serves its purpose very well.

Unless you really need the 2.8 badly, I don't see why you shouldn't go with the 18-200..
It's a pure delight !
and, I was able to sell my primes (50 1.8 85 1.8) and the 18-70 kit lens !
All in all, I'm so glad I made the move from the 80-200 to the 18-200 !

--I have both, you have to NEED the 80-200 to keep it. Dont make the mistake of thinking I am saying the 18-200VR is a better lens... IT IS NOT. BUT, unless you are doing things where the ultimate quality of the 80-200 2.8 is necessary, the 18-200 will deliver you very nice results. It will handle a wide range of situations, you will hardly notice it on the camea and the VR will make images possible that you would normally not get.

For its designed purpose, the 80-200 2.8 is unbeatable. The optic formula as been virtually unchanged since its inception, and it is still hard to find a used one. That ought to tell you something about it. If you are tempted to ask me about the specific situations where you would want IT, dont, you have answered your own question. Sell it to someone that will use it.
MATTinNE_FL

exactly how I feel..

if you don't use it, you don't need it !

the 80-200 is a great lens, but it won't show in the bottom of a drawer..

Lionel P

One has to step back and think about why you would want the 18-200. That is when you have it on your camera, it is likely to stay on it for a long time since the range is so great and for the convience of it. The reason why people buy "pro" quality lens instead of an "one size fits all" lens approach is to master in photography.

Therefore, I feel that one should look at their shooting style and purchase good "pro" quality lens (within budget of course) for now and the future. I do not have a 18-200, but I am sure it is a good quality glass but I rather use a 17-55 and 70-200vr anyday.

JMHO

I have the 18-70 and the 28-200G. I don't anticipate ever using the 18-70 on my D70 again. That is because the $300 28-200G does such a good job in the range I use it for.

Yesterday I took it to the Race for the Cure, photographed fellow race participants near and far, flowers, landmarks from a distance, skylines, etc. All with this one lens. Had I used the 18-70 I could have gotten some wider shots but would have missed all the distant ones.

So regardless of what you get, there is something to be said for not having to change lenses constantly or not having the right lens or having to carry a bag of lenses around.

--
Darlene
D70 and D50 18-70, 50 f1.8, 28-200G
8800 / 4300 / Panny FZ4
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

Each lens has its advantages. I have the 80-200 and the 28-200. The 80-200 is faster, better optoically but also heavier, great build but no wide angle. The 80-200 has advantages for sports and low light situations and can also use with a TC to increase length to nearly 300mm. I am very happy with both. Here is a couple today putting the 80-200 through its paces.





Laslo
--
lv1
http://laslo.smugmug.com
Smugmug $5 discount coupon # TuPSpSrzoQRkc

..very much also. Has not dissapointed me. I do not seem to miss the the wider angles but that is just my style.

Laslo
--
lv1
http://laslo.smugmug.com
Smugmug $5 discount coupon # TuPSpSrzoQRkc

I have the 18-200 VR and it is a superb little lens! It is ideal as a walkaround all-purpose lens and does a commendable job at going from slightly wide all the way to telephoto. I also own the 70-200 VR but very often find myself reaching for the 18-200 first because it is smaller and lighter. It's not the fastest lens in the book but it certainly does a commendable job and of course you can always kick up the ISO if need be in certain situations. I have the D70 and the D200 -- haven't really used my D70 too much since I got the D200 but on the D200 it does just great so you can be assured that this lens will do extremely well with the D70 and the D50 as well.

--Connie
--
Through the years with Coolpixes, the D70 and now the D200
Lotsa good glass
PBase supporter, Smug Mug supporter
http://www.pbase.com/the_feminine_perspective

A friend of mine was telling me he wanted to get the 18-200mm VR... But in my mind, I prefer the 80-200mm f2.8, considering that both cost around the same!

This thread has some good point between the two lens, i will forward this to him!
--
D50 + 18-70mm + SB800

The 80-200mm f/2.8 would compliment your 18-70 well... giving you a kit with excellent image quality, but it will be a heavy and bulky kit because of the 80-200's size and weight.

The 80-200 was one of the first lenses I purchased after getting my D70 with the 18-70mm kit lens. I've never regretted that purchase, but honestly it isn't my most-used lens. I do use it quite often, and it has captured some of my best photographs. The image quality always reminds me why I lug it around. Along with my primes, it defines excellence in image quality as far as I'm concerned.

But... I don't take it everywhere. It's not a "let me throw this into my bag in case I need it" kind of lens. I do take it hiking when I hope to photograph wildlife, or distant landscapes (along with a Kenko 1.4x TC). I also love it for portraits and events. This lens is excellent for portraits, and it has been a bread & butter lens for wedding photographers and photo-journalists for many years. I like taking portraits and event photos with this lens primarily for the beautifully smooth bokeh. Of course it is also a great lens for action shots, but not the quickest to focus.

I have a 24-120mm VR that is my lgihtweight replacement. I hope to replace the 24-120 with the 18-200mm VR very soon (I'm on a waitlist). A superzoom won't give you the shutter speed, sharpness, or bokeh of the 80-200mm f/2.8, but it can still give you fantastic photos. In some situations a superzoom will get you shots that aren't possible with the 80-200 (wide angle shots and slow shutter handheld shots if you have a VR superzoom). Here are the times when I prefer a super-zoom:

When I want to be less conspicuous. There are times when I don't want to have a big, professional looking lens that attracts attention.

When I want to travel light: This is the big problem with the 80-200. It isn't much fun to travel around new places, shopping, sight-seeing, etc. with a large unwieldy bag of photo gear. There are times when I travel with the 80-200. If I know I will use that range a lot, and want the best IQ possible, it comes with me. If I'm not sure I'll use it, the big lens stays home. I've traveled quite happily with only my Tokina 12-24, 24-120VR, 35mm f/2, and fisheye lenses. For ultralight travel, I think I'd be happy with only the 18-200mm VR, but I'd supplement it with a fast prime like the 35mm f/2. I also have a hard time leaving the 12-24 behind. I'm a sucker for wide angles.

As an amateur, I don't want to take a vacation with my fiancee and make the trip all about my hobby. Sure I want to bring home some great photographs (and she wants me to as well), but I also want to enjoy myself and focus on spending time with my fiancee. I enjoy having a convenient lens that allows me to open my bag, zoom to just the right focal length, and take the picture. When I'm using the 24-120, I try to keep the aperture between f/8 and f/11 and it produces wonderful images. They won't always compare well against the same photo taken with the 80-200 or one of my primes, but quite often they do. Once and awhile I look at a photo taken with the 24-120 and wish I would have had a better lens, but most of the time I'm perfectly pleased with the results... and the lighter load!

Size and weight are relative, and the 80-200 is not that much of a beast compared to wildlife lenses. Many professional photographers and photo-journalists regularly carry a couple of pro-DSLR bodies and two or three heavy zooms like the 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. If your style demands fast shutter speeds in low light, the best image quality, rugged build quality, etc... you've got to find a way to shoulder the burden (or hire an assistant).

For amateur photographers like myself, we have to weigh these factors against cost, convenience, and our own personal limitations when it comes to size and weight. For me personally... the 80-200 is more essential than the superzoom. But if I travelled more often, the superzoom might be in the bag more often.

kavita wahi said:

Also kindly suggest a good portrait lens
or is my 18-70 kit lens good enough for this purpose ?

Thanks for yr time

Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, the 80-200 is an excellent portrait lens... but only if you've got some distance between you and your subject. The 85mm primes are THE lengends as far as portraits go, but on a DSLR the 50mm primes are excellent as well. You can also get a 60mm f/2.8 macro that will serve as an excellent portrait lens. I often use my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro for portraits, but prefer the 80-200 when I have it with me. Your 18-70mm can also take excellent portraits, though it won't blur the background as well as a faster lens.

For candids and portraits that capture more of the environment, the 35mm f/2 is ideal in my opinion. I often use the 35 as a walk-around lens. Other primes usually make me long for a zoom if I'm walking around with them attached, but the 35 feels right in many situations.

You can never own enough lenses since each one has strengths and weaknesses that make them more or less suitable to different shooting styles and different situations. The trick is to decide which lens or lenses you will use the most for now, and start there. The good news, and the bad news, is that you can always buy more. You can sell them too, so don't sweat it if you buy a lens and find it just doesn't work for you.

Sean