18-70mm+70-300 VR VS 18-200VR

Am considering some new lenses for my D70s.
Any thoughts/opinions/experience on the above
lenses? Any benefit to a combo of 18-70 plus a 70-300mm
or just go with a 18-200mm VR??

Thanks for your time,
--
Ang

Great question! I am facing the same dilemma... see my response to an earlier thread today:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=20184877

AngW said:

Am considering some new lenses for my D70s.
Any thoughts/opinions/experience on the above
lenses? Any benefit to a combo of 18-70 plus a 70-300mm
or just go with a 18-200mm VR??

Thanks for your time,
--
Ang

Click to expand...

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

I guess instead of linking to another thread, here is my response:

CONS for 18-70/70-300VR

1.) Need to switch lenses

2.) Lack VR for 18-70 (although, one probably don't need VR at this focal length unless at very low light situations)

3.) Slightly more expensive option ($250 (new) + $500 (new) = $750, vs. $700 (MSRP) for 18-200 VR). Although this does not necessarily apply to me, since I already own the 18-70 lens and I don't ever intend on selling this lens.

PROS for 18-70/70-300VR

1.) Better image quality than 18-200 VR (less distortion at wide end from published reports (i.e. photozone.de, 18-200 VR broke the record previously held by Canon 17-85mm IS for being the lens with most barrel distortion!!) and sharper at the tele end (i.e. MTF charts, quite clear difference; 70-300 VR @ 300mm is sharper than 18-200mm @ 200mm)).

2.) Better construction... from the pictures of 70-300 VR, the lens is cammed with much less extension, and I love the big fat zoom ring on the 70-300 VR. Whether the 70-300 VR will suffer the serious zoom creep a la 18-200 VR remains to be seen.

3.) 70-300 VR is a full frame lens (future proof)... see how much the Canon 75-300mm IS lens, introduced back in 1996, is still holding good value in the resale market. This lens was Canon's first IS lens and now after 10 years, the lens is still semi-decent, even after Canon updated this lens with the superb 70-300mm IS late last year. I can probably anticipate using this 70-300 VR lens for 10 years, by which time I fully expect Nikon's FF camera to be released AND affordable.

4.) Lastly, the 18-70/70-300 VR cover more range from 18 to 300mm. The difference between 200mm and 300mm is definitely noticeable. And having two lenses does mean that you don't "put all your eggs" in one basket, i.e. if you accidentally dropped/damaged one lens, you'll still have the other lens (i.e. lower cost of replacement, compared to putting all your eggs in one basket in the case of 18-200 VR).

---------------

Now, in summary... what is my verdict? Well, I am just as confused as most of us are... Some days, I tell myself to go for the 18-70/70-300 VR, other days, I am all for the 18-200 VR and just accept the inherent compromises of the superzoom...

I would definitely appreciate and welcome some rational discussions on this subject... I have preordered both 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR, and I have a feeling that both lenses might be available to me soon (thus, I need to make a decision fast!)

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

ahh....sorry for being repetitive...I searched but obviously didn't do a very good job!! ;o)
--
Ang

Aw shucks, just get all three.

sounds good! you're buying then?
--
Ang

LOL... I wish!!!

Jack Bishop said:

Aw shucks, just get all three.

Click to expand...

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

I started with the kit 18-70, then got the 18-200VR and now have the 70-300VR on order. I have a 70-300ED non VR but need the VR and extra reach for high school football. Would like to have 70-200VR with TC, but funds won't stretch that far.

I've been using my old lenses from my N70 - 28-85 macro zoom
and a 75-300mm...taken some good shots but its just not consistent
because of the older technology and requires some "fiddling". I have
an older 50mm 1.8 and can't get it to work on the d70s - keep getting

an error message. My local photoshop said it should work but it doesn't appear to be compatible. Have you heard anything about the 50mm 1.8 not working withe the D70s?
--
Ang

I think 50mm f/1.8 should be fine... check whether the lens contacts are dirty. If your 50mm f/1.8 is a non-D version, the metering and flash may theorectically be slightly accurate, but for all intents and purposes, your 50mm f/1.8 should work fine on D70.

AngW said:

I've been using my old lenses from my N70 - 28-85 macro zoom
and a 75-300mm...taken some good shots but its just not consistent
because of the older technology and requires some "fiddling". I have
an older 50mm 1.8 and can't get it to work on the d70s - keep getting
an error message. My local photoshop said it should work but it
doesn't appear to be compatible. Have you heard anything about the
50mm 1.8 not working withe the D70s?
--
Ang

Click to expand...

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

I think if I ended up choosing the 18-200 VR over the 18-70/70-300 VR (still undecided at the moment), I think my next lens purchase will probably be a fast telephoto (such as Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8), a more potent telephoto zoom (such as Nikkor 80-400 VR when it gets updated with AF-S) or a wide angle (Sigma/Tokina variety).

Although, if I ended up getting a second body (and give my D50 to my girlfriend; funny, I just read a thread about this on the D80/70/50 forum today), one body can have the 18-200 VR, and one body can have the 18-70/70-300 VR combo.

Jack Bishop said:

I started with the kit 18-70, then got the 18-200VR and now have
the 70-300VR on order. I have a 70-300ED non VR but need the VR
and extra reach for high school football. Would like to have
70-200VR with TC, but funds won't stretch that far.

Click to expand...

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

sounds like the best of both worlds!

I find it interesting that the 18-200VR is in such high demand...waiting
list in my city anyway....but I haven't really heard too many people raving
about it on here??
Ang

i'm also waiting for 18-200vr. but i'm keeping my 180/2.8. because a fast lens and a good bokeh is special.

Where did you see these prices?
Are you talking about grey market?
--
GimShim

I am also seriously considering to get the 70-300VR to pair with my 18-70.

have waited for 18-200VR for toooooo loooooong and still no hope to get one in the near future so I gave up on that. on the other hand I believe 70-300VR will outperform 18-200VR for the range 70-200. as for the "trouble" of switching lenses, well, that SLRs are designed for!

here in Sweden the 70-300VR costs around 888$, but my concern is if it will be available by the end of this year...

future plan is to invest in primes after I have 18 to 300mm resonably well covered by 18-70 and 70-300VR.

The ERR message usually means your aperture ring isn't locked down at its smallest aperture/greatest number. Mine is an old, non-D and it works fine. A little clunky, but fine.
--
All the best,
Kit
Please see my pictures at
http://www.parazz.com/albums/kithg

I have all 3. Well, not the VR 70-300 of course, but the ED version. I was very content with the 18-70 and 70-300 with my D70. And I used the 70-300 with my F100 in my film days. The 2 lens combination yields quality images across a very wide range of focal lengths. Both lenses are plenty sharp with good contrast and color.

When I purchased a D200 early this year I ordered the 18-200 as well. I was one of the fortunate ones and received the lens about 2 weeks after ordering. I must say it is an excellent lens and I favor it over the 2 lens combo. It has 2 major advantages. First, no more lense swapping. Second, the VR function really works.

I can think of 2 minor drawbacks of the 18-200VR approach. First, depending on which camera body you own, you might find it a bit heavy. It balances well on a D200 but is a bit front heavy on a D50/D70/D80. Second, the 70-300VR is a full frame lens. If Nikon ever comes out with a full frame digital SLR then you would be in good shape.

I have 2 galleries full of images taken entirely with the 18-200VR on my D200. I have posted them here before, but if you are interested...

http://www.pbase.com/fotofanatik/rocky_mtn_natl_park
http://www.pbase.com/fotofanatik/san_antonio

Alternatively, here is a gallery of images taken mostly with the 18-70 and 70-300 on my D70:

http://www.pbase.com/fotofanatik/europe

--
Steve

Hi marshim:

Prices that I listed were estimates:

Nikkor 18-70: I bought mine as a packaged deal consisting of D50, 18-70, Nikon gadget bag, and a few other junk... for $769 from Cameta camera 7 months ago. I think without the body and the gadget bag, the lens is worth about $250. I think big name stores such as B&H and Adorama sell this lens grey for around $260... I am not sure. I certainly would not pay over $300 for this lens. I buy all my lenses with USA warranty... Alternatively, you can get brand new or mint 18-70 (usually they are sold by people who bought the D200 kit) for $170 - $200.

Nikkor 70-300 VR: $499 at Roberts Imaging

Nikkor 18-200 VR: $699 at Roberts Imaging (for a very long time, until just this past month, Roberts was selling the lens at $669; I pre-ordered mine at this price). San Jose Camera used to sell them at $659, but they don't accept orders anymore (their waitlist is too long) and I don't like them... San Jose Camera is rude and unprofessional... Roberts Imaging is nice and friendly.

marshim said:

Where did you see these prices?
Are you talking about grey market?
--
GimShim

Click to expand...

--
I shoot with both N i k o n D 5 0 & C a n o n R e b e l X T

I'm in the same dilemma as everyone else. I'm a newbie to the DSLR-game so please bear with me.
It's very tempting to go for the 18-200VR and have a one-lens solution.

However there has been some posting about this lens beeing a poor low-light performer, or at least people from the northern-most latitudes have taken a negative approach.

I myself live in scandinavia where the sun is turned off most of the year, and is therefore interested if I should worry about this.

I'm certain that the new 70-300VR will outperform the 18-200VR at telephoto, but if we only look at the wide-end of the spectrum, how does it compare to the performance of the 18-70 specifically concerning low-light conditions. They have the same maximum aperture but the 18-200VR also has VR, so theoretically this should give it the edge.

Sorry if I've got this all wrong, but then please feel free to correct my misinterpretations.

Depends on how often you shoot tele (I do as I shoot a lot of close-ups and concerts) - If frequently, the 70-300mm VR will work better for you even with the lens changes.

The 18-200mm VR is a very good all-purpose lens though, so if you may not use the 300mm end that often, this will satisfy you most of the time because although you get 100mm more with the 70-300mm, you have to change lenses and you may miss a photo opportunity as a result.

Why not get a 2nd body and fit one with the 18-70mm and one with the 70-300mm VR? OR else just one body and the 18-200mm VR... ;-)

--



Your 4 'Cees' for photography: Crisp, Clean, Composed and Colourful
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net