I am about to purchase a D-200 and am debating between these two Nikon lenses. The 70-200 is about twice the price with I assume better optics than the wider range zoom. I am probably am going to be able to afford only one lens with the camera initally and realize for the multi-use the wider range zoom would seem to be the better choice. Am i going to regret not spending the extra $800 for the 70-200 or are there better choices. My photography is primarily sports, nature, scenic, wildlife.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
18-200 vs 70-200
- Thread starter FJM
- Start date
I posted a similar question last night.
From your interests, you would have no wide focal length for scenic landscape if you bought the 70-200 vr.
The 18-200 vr would work if you have lots of light, but for low light you are better off with the 70-200vr.
look at the responses to my post. Not exactly what you are asking but may be useful anyways.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20117744
--
D 8 0, D 7 0, 1 8 - 2 0 0 v r, 1 8 - 7 0, 1 0 5 v r,
5 0 f 1 . 4, S B 6 0 0, N V, N C, P P, P S E 4
From your interests, you would have no wide focal length for scenic landscape if you bought the 70-200 vr.
The 18-200 vr would work if you have lots of light, but for low light you are better off with the 70-200vr.
look at the responses to my post. Not exactly what you are asking but may be useful anyways.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20117744
--
D 8 0, D 7 0, 1 8 - 2 0 0 v r, 1 8 - 7 0, 1 0 5 v r,
5 0 f 1 . 4, S B 6 0 0, N V, N C, P P, P S E 4
BoyOhBoy
Senior Member
This question has been asked a million times - do a search for plenty of info.
I don't have it, but the 70-200 is NOT a general purpose lens. This thing is large and heavy.
I don't have it, but the 70-200 is NOT a general purpose lens. This thing is large and heavy.
Roger J. Buffington
Senior Member
There are a number of excellent threads on this subject -- it appears to be a subject on the minds of many.
I have both lenses and would not part with either.
The 70-200VR is the best lens in its focal range for sports and wildlife IMO. If you are shooting flying birds, for instance, the speed (F/2.8--F/3.8 with the TC1.4EII) of the 70-200VR is something you will need. Moving subjects require a fairly fast shutter speed (I try to shoot 1/640 or better) and you don't want to have to shoot wide open either. The sharpness and clarity of the 70-200VR will reward your wildlife images. Here are a few very early morning shots with the 70-200VR in fairly low light.
I simply could not have taken the above pics effectively with the 18-200VR because the speed of the subjects required a fast shutter speed, and the light was such that to do that a fast lens was a must.
The 18-200VR is not a fast lens. However, the VR will allow you to take very nice low-light photos of static subjects such as landscapes. Here are a couple shot hand-held with the 18-200VR in very low light. They are tack-sharp despite being shot from a rocking boat (active VR) in low-light sunrise conditions.
The VR was essential to being able to take these shots and it worked great. But remember that it does not help for rapidly-moving subjects any more than a tripod does. As Thom Hogan said, VR used for fast-moving subjects in low light will give you blurred subjects and sharp grass.
The 18-200, however, is the most flexible lens there is. It takes very sharp pics at all focal lengths with nice, contrasty images with bright color. It is SMALL and easy to carry around. If you are looking for a first lens and need to limit yourself to one lens, the 18-200VR now (and the 70-200VR next) might be the way to go. Here are a few ordinary images from the 18-200VR in ordinary light.
I don't claim that there is anything special about any of these images--I'm no pro. They are just examples of types of shots.
--
Roger
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
I have both lenses and would not part with either.
The 70-200VR is the best lens in its focal range for sports and wildlife IMO. If you are shooting flying birds, for instance, the speed (F/2.8--F/3.8 with the TC1.4EII) of the 70-200VR is something you will need. Moving subjects require a fairly fast shutter speed (I try to shoot 1/640 or better) and you don't want to have to shoot wide open either. The sharpness and clarity of the 70-200VR will reward your wildlife images. Here are a few very early morning shots with the 70-200VR in fairly low light.
I simply could not have taken the above pics effectively with the 18-200VR because the speed of the subjects required a fast shutter speed, and the light was such that to do that a fast lens was a must.
The 18-200VR is not a fast lens. However, the VR will allow you to take very nice low-light photos of static subjects such as landscapes. Here are a couple shot hand-held with the 18-200VR in very low light. They are tack-sharp despite being shot from a rocking boat (active VR) in low-light sunrise conditions.
The VR was essential to being able to take these shots and it worked great. But remember that it does not help for rapidly-moving subjects any more than a tripod does. As Thom Hogan said, VR used for fast-moving subjects in low light will give you blurred subjects and sharp grass.
The 18-200, however, is the most flexible lens there is. It takes very sharp pics at all focal lengths with nice, contrasty images with bright color. It is SMALL and easy to carry around. If you are looking for a first lens and need to limit yourself to one lens, the 18-200VR now (and the 70-200VR next) might be the way to go. Here are a few ordinary images from the 18-200VR in ordinary light.
I don't claim that there is anything special about any of these images--I'm no pro. They are just examples of types of shots.
--
Roger
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
Shorebird
Well-known member
--
Bill T
Bill T
Thanks for the excellent write-up Roger and to others I apologize for the obvious redundancy. I am returning to photography after a 30 year absence and trying to relearn things in the digital age. I am an old Olympus OM SLR user but have inherited a number of nikon and leica bodies and lenses and from my research the Nikon seems to be the best way to go.
I was in the same situation about 9 months ago
(digital after 40 years of film). After getting the D200,
I bought the 18-200 and I don't think that I could
be without it despite its limitations - it is on my camera
at least 75% of the time. Still, I now find myself wanting
to add a nice piece of sharp/pro glass to my arsenal. The
70-200 would be a great addition - but it would not be
a carry-around like the 18-200. Also, I use the wide part
(of the 18-200) more than the upper part.
Down the road, I can see myself with the 12-24 (already have that),
a nice mid range/fast lens and the 70-200 along with the
300/4 AFS that I also have now.
I would get the 18-200 to start with if I were you.
--
Lou
http://loutent.smugmug.com/
(digital after 40 years of film). After getting the D200,
I bought the 18-200 and I don't think that I could
be without it despite its limitations - it is on my camera
at least 75% of the time. Still, I now find myself wanting
to add a nice piece of sharp/pro glass to my arsenal. The
70-200 would be a great addition - but it would not be
a carry-around like the 18-200. Also, I use the wide part
(of the 18-200) more than the upper part.
Down the road, I can see myself with the 12-24 (already have that),
a nice mid range/fast lens and the 70-200 along with the
300/4 AFS that I also have now.
I would get the 18-200 to start with if I were you.
--
Lou
http://loutent.smugmug.com/
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 18-200mm lens is an all round lens that is a jack of all trades, but a master of none. If you only could get one lens, that may be the choice.
The 70-200mm VR lens is a pro lens that most say is one of Nikon's best. It is sharp, focuses fast and has great bokeh. It can be used for sports, portraits, wildlife (with a TC). The only negatives to this lens are weight and cost. Also, the focal lengths are limited 105-300 mm (b/c of the 1.5x digital sensor factor).
A good combination, IMHO, would be the 70-200 mm paired with the 17-55mm (but high cost) otherwise with the kit lens (18-70mm).
Also, you may want to see Thom Hogan's review on these lenses.
SJP
The 70-200mm VR lens is a pro lens that most say is one of Nikon's best. It is sharp, focuses fast and has great bokeh. It can be used for sports, portraits, wildlife (with a TC). The only negatives to this lens are weight and cost. Also, the focal lengths are limited 105-300 mm (b/c of the 1.5x digital sensor factor).
A good combination, IMHO, would be the 70-200 mm paired with the 17-55mm (but high cost) otherwise with the kit lens (18-70mm).
Also, you may want to see Thom Hogan's review on these lenses.
SJP
BIGTEE
Senior Member
this is all well and good, but without paying an arm and a leg, where do you propose that he get an 18-200vr?
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
For sports & wildlife the 70-200 is a million times better choice. The 18-200 is a consumer lens meant for people who are lazy and/or don't want to carry proper tools for the job. Why do you think Nikon makes so many different lenses if one lens was able to do everything? Something doesn't add up and the compromise is visible in the quality of the pictures if you go with the 18-200mm.
In addition to the 70-200 you would need another lens for scenics. Consider the 18-70 DX, it is a good lens for the money.
Walt A
Member
...Yes, the 18-200 VR is a first-rate kit lens, but so is the under-$400 Tamron 18-200 lens. It has been written up very favorably by more than one publication. It is much more compact than the Nikon VR, with 62mm filter threads (vs. the Nikon's 67mm) and less weight. Its short protrusion from the camera body avoids the visible shadow cast by the 18-200VR lens when used with the on-camera flash at wide-angle settings.
OK, so it doesn't have the VR feature, but your need of this faciliity may be limited. In most cases, a tripod is a very worthwhile solution to many of the problems involving camera motion.
Give this option some thought. It may relieve your concerns, both on the camera and in the pocket.
Regards,
Walt
OK, so it doesn't have the VR feature, but your need of this faciliity may be limited. In most cases, a tripod is a very worthwhile solution to many of the problems involving camera motion.
Give this option some thought. It may relieve your concerns, both on the camera and in the pocket.
Regards,
Walt
I have both, I have been disappointed with the 70-200 its not that much better than the 18-200 IMHO. I would advice you bought the 18-200 and a 300 f4 AFS which is a highly rated telephoto lens. If you get really serious and have £3000 to spare get a 300mm f2.8 VR!
--
Nick
Herts, UK
--
Nick
Herts, UK
What world do you live on? :> )
Roger J. Buffington
Senior Member
I also have both. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the 18-200VR is sharp, contrasty, with nice colors. But it is not an F 2.8 lens, and for certain types of shots there is no substitute for fast glass.
The other quality that the 70-200VR has that the 18-200VR does not, is sensational bokeh. Very few lenses can match the pleasing bokeh of the 70-200VR -- in fact none that I have used.
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
Earth. What about you?
So, you think that all people who prefer to carry an 18-200 lens as a walkabout lens instead of 3 or 4 primes are lazy. Not all of us are super fit and able to carry a huge bag with lots of primes and a tripod about for a few hours. Also, how many shots have you missed whilst changing lenses or setting up a tripod? I know that primes have better IQ and this is important if you wish to print poster size but the majority of amateur photographers do not normally print photos larger than A4. A lot of people on this forum have primes and the 18-200 and say that for most of the time the 18-200 lens is the lens that they use the most.
After knocking the 18-200, you then go on to say that the 18-70 is a good lens. The 18-200 IQ is as good as the 18-70 if not better. It also has a longer reach and VR.
Dave
http://www2.pbase.com/katocat
Sorry for the terse comment, Ilkka, but your broad brush characterization of the 18-200 as a "consumer" lens and it's users as lazy represents a vary narrow perspective, in my opinion. The 18-200 is not the match of the 70-200 as others have commented, but that's not a reason to write it off as poor quality and demean its users. Rather than lazy, I'd characterize it's users as practical. Many own both lenses, and have need for both of them. They serve different purposes. Look at the shots that Roger posted above in this thread. Those are excellent no matter what lens one is using.
Alan
Jonty Sexton
Well-known member
...not only that, Ilkka, I am most certainly NOT lazy. and I'm not an amateur - but I do travel a lot - on aircraft. Heard of those?
I have both lenses and both have their place. I am getting excellent quality 13x19 saleable prints from my 18-200 which I wouldn't have got with my 70-200 because travel restrictions/luggage allowance means that I wouldn't have had it with me!
Learn your lenses, learn their applications. Then comment.
--
JMS
http://www.photovue.co.uk
I have both lenses and both have their place. I am getting excellent quality 13x19 saleable prints from my 18-200 which I wouldn't have got with my 70-200 because travel restrictions/luggage allowance means that I wouldn't have had it with me!
Learn your lenses, learn their applications. Then comment.
--
JMS
http://www.photovue.co.uk
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum