Nikkor 18-70 to 18-200 VRII

chewhow

Well-known member
Messages
145
Reaction score
4
Location
MY
Hi,
Any one upgrade their 18-70 to 18-200 VRII lens? How was it?

I looking for 18-200 because it is a full range lens and suitable for travel. But worry on the image quality degradation from 18-70 to 18-200. With the review from DPReview on D300 which have the CA reduction (or with Capture NX) - which is really impressive, it convince me on 18-200 again.

For travel, in deed 200mm isn't enough for me. I would prefer 70-300mm. But with this, i lost the wide angle side. Unless I am willing to change lens (18-70 + 70-300).
Think of Tamron 18-270, same question, worry on IQ.

Any one tried lenses above? Mind give some opinions?

thanks
 
the best image quality would obviously come from a 18-70 + 70-300VR combo, espacially at the long end. Image quality of the tamron is simply not good enough, i'd stay away from that.

the 18-200 performs very well for a lens of that range, but it simply can't match a two lens combo. it really just depends on how important the convenience of a one lens solution is to you. i would always take the two lens combo over the 18-200, as i just don't mind a lens change, but that's personal preference.

the 18-200 is certainly a good performer, actually great given it's range, but the compromises do show.
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://www.mg-photo.ch
 
Built-in Chromatic Aberration correction
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page21.asp

This convince me to get 18-200. If 18-200 result is too soft, can turn the sharpness level on camera or Capture NX.
CA is easy to correct in PP, espacially with RAW, so the built in correction is no big deal imho. but a soft lens can't be corrected with a higher sharpening setting, all you get is oversharpened blur. if you're lucky, you'll get a good sample of the 18-200, the one i tried in a shop was useless on the long end.
Any way, need to try out. Other wise, just assumption.
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://www.mg-photo.ch
 
I have two copies of the 18-70 and my 18-200 is easily sharper than either one of them.
 
There is no image degradation, if you are shooting wide open the 18-70 has better bokeh a bit sharper and is 2/3 of a stop faster. If you'll be shooting F/5.6 or smaller the differences will be at pixel peeing level.
 
Both the 18-70 and 18-200 are fine lenses. I own them both and still use them both. The only real advantage of the 18-70 is its small size and weight. The 18-200 pretty much mirrors the image quality of the 18-70, but adds a much greater zoom range plus VR. I have traveled with a two lens kit 18-70 plus 70-300 and a one lens kit (18-200VR). I found with the two lens kit that I rarely bothered to switch lenses and didn't often need the longer focal lengths of the 70-300.

Here is a link to travel images with the 18-70 plus 70-300 (there are also a few with a Tokina 12-24):

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

And here are two links to trips with just the 18-200VR:

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

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

--
Steve

 
Had them both too (well the original 18-200) and the differences could only be seen at 100%. Sold both to get a 105 vr and I'm missing my 18-200. People could not tell the difference and to me that's all that really mattered.

There is a big difference however between the 18-200 and the 105 vr though. I think so anyways. Its the best I have ever used and I use it almost exclusively unless I need a different focal length.
 
18-200 VR vs. 105 VR. For sure 105 will be better in term of sharpness. it is a macro lens. I used 90mm tamron. the sharpness, much more better than my 18-70. macro is design that way :D
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top