Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

Started Jan 15, 2011 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
INGOR Forum Member • Posts: 78
Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

What is prefferable for D90?

Niklas Ramstedt
Niklas Ramstedt Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

If you can afford it, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II. I have used an 18-200mm a lot and owned a 55-200. I own the 70-200 f2.8 VR, bought it used, and neither one of the others come near this lens in terms of sharpness, contrast or bokeh. Build quality is also superb.

-- hide signature --
 Niklas Ramstedt's gear list:Niklas Ramstedt's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +3 more
GMack Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

I'll take a wild guess and say the zoom with the less zoom range will be the sharpest performing - optics considered. Maybe the 70-200 in your mix? I really don't think my 18-200 is all that hot on focus seeing some of the others here with pics off the 70-200. Nice range for an all-in-one, but I thinks it suffers a bit in performance. Imagine if they made a 10mm to 600mm zoom? It would be a nightmare to get it all to come together. Might happen someday though.

Sometimes you get a good one and other times you don't. I've never seen a "perfect" zoom lens and even between the same model on the bench. You could watch the Siemens Star target go from sharp to blurry and then snap back into focus while zooming the lens through the pellicle beam-splitter in the auto-collimator eyepiece. You learn to find the sweet spot at times in those lenses and sometimes we would tell the pros to stay away from the 85mm area on some zoom if they "Just had to know."

Mack

jhorse Senior Member • Posts: 2,409
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

Hi,

What is your photographic requirement(s)? A difficult question to answer objectively without knowing what you shoot, the circumstances of the type of photography you pursue and your budget. In absolute terms the 70-200 VR f2.8 will deliver the sharpest images, but at a cost.

I travel a lot, engage in sport where photography is secondary to participation in the sport (sailing, skiing, hiking, etc) and take photographs on family outings. For this requirement less weight and bulk and more convenience are key criteria. My 18-200 VR is an excellent lens for these circumstances. Even a 18-55 and a 55–200 VR, which I also have and which deliver similar IQ, are not as convenient in these circumstances. On my D300s it delivers excellent images.

On a budget, the 55-200VR delivers quiet superb images and it does so at a reduced cost and weight. Is that better for travel needs? May be. When I travel light, on a D40 I am always surprised at how good the images are from it.

The 70-200 VR delivers suburb images by any measure, can isolate the subject matter better and use faster shutter speeds at wider apertures to freeze motion. For many situations it is the best lens, especially sport and portraiture, but at a huge jump in cost, weight and bulk and with the probable need to buy another lens to accommodate wider angles of view. Does your requirement and budget justify the outlay and tolerance of its weight? For many people the answer is undoubtedly yes, but for others it is no.

So, to help us offer more objective advice, let us know your requirements. Hope that helps.

-- hide signature --
 jhorse's gear list:jhorse's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Olympus OM-D E-M10
wlad Senior Member • Posts: 1,486
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

so you're comparing a $2200 lens to a $200 lens. That makes sense.

AV Janus Senior Member • Posts: 1,994
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

If money and size makes no difference 70-200 is the one to buy!

Me how ever can't believe how many people are willing to fork out 2000$ for a lens that while the best is THAT big, and on top of that it's sharpness and crop potential is unnecessary for 90% of frames even if you print large!
Private needs, naturally!
--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."

 AV Janus's gear list:AV Janus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 Samyang 85mm F1.4 Aspherical IF +10 more
BruceEvans Senior Member • Posts: 1,291
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

INGOR wrote:

What is prefferable for D90?

70-200 not on same page--an expensive, fast, superb, professional, heavy, beautiful piece of equipment--oh, did I mention expensive. Wouldn't give up mine for anything.

Bruce

BruceEvans Senior Member • Posts: 1,291
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

AV Janus wrote:

it's sharpness and crop potential is unnecessary for 90% of frames even if you print large!

for that matter, 90% of our work could be done on one of those disposable film cameras at the supermarket checkout desk.

bruce

BobSC Veteran Member • Posts: 3,664
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

AV Janus wrote:

If money and size makes no difference 70-200 is the one to buy!

Me how ever can't believe how many people are willing to fork out 2000$ for a lens that while the best is THAT big, and on top of that it's sharpness and crop potential is unnecessary for 90% of frames even if you print large!

I got a used 80-200 f/2.8 for under $300.

It's amazing how good photos look from it. No matter what size they're printed at. It just has a sharpness and clarity that isn't in cheaper lenses. And wide open the out of focus effect is dramatic. But yeah, it's heavy. Rather like holding a brick.

I think I'm going to replace it with a 105 2.5.

IeraseU Senior Member • Posts: 1,875
Re: In absolute terms, the foot long, 3lb, $2,000+ lens is probably better....

In absolute terms the foot long, 3lb, $2000+ lens is probably a little nicer then the others, but it would suck to lug around on a vacation or while cycling, or hiking up a mountain, therefore the other lenses very much also have their place.

stuntmonkey
stuntmonkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,696
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

INGOR wrote:

What is prefferable for D90?

Just to summarize what the other posts are alluding to... these are three completely different lenses with three completely different intended uses. If you can come up with a clearer idea of what you need the lens for, one of them will probably suit your use.

However, to be honest (and without prejudice), the 70-200VR is not for you. If you are considering it with the 18-200, then it's one of those 'if you have to ask' kind of situations.

INGOR OP Forum Member • Posts: 78
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

BobSC wrote:

AV Janus wrote:

If money and size makes no difference 70-200 is the one to buy!

Me how ever can't believe how many people are willing to fork out 2000$ for a lens that while the best is THAT big, and on top of that it's sharpness and crop potential is unnecessary for 90% of frames even if you print large!

I got a used 80-200 f/2.8 for under $300.

It's amazing how good photos look from it. No matter what size they're printed at. It just has a sharpness and clarity that isn't in cheaper lenses. And wide open the out of focus effect is dramatic. But yeah, it's heavy. Rather like holding a brick.

I think I'm going to replace it with a 105 2.5.

Do you have an idea: 80-200 f/2.8 will autofocus on D90?
Thanks

BobSC Veteran Member • Posts: 3,664
Re: Nikon 18-200mm VR vs Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs. Nikon 55-200mm VR

INGOR wrote:

Do you have an idea: 80-200 f/2.8 will autofocus on D90?
Thanks

Yes, it will.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads