18-200 VR or 70-200 2.8 VR?

J

jeps

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Name
Jenny
Edit My Images
No
OK so after reading review upon review I now can't decide on what lens to get. I do mostly studio portrait stuff but will be expanding to location shoots soon (and ultimately weddings) so wanted a good zoom - especially as I largely photograph children so need the flexibility of a zoom as they race around so much.

Had decided on the 70-200 2.8 as I thought if I did do weddings it'd be good in low lighting until I read Ken Rockwell's glowing review of the 18-200 and now I don't know what to do.

Can anyone advise? Have just read a thread on here by someone saying the 18-200 is rubbish for portraits. I have a headache.

I also have a the kit lens AF-S Nikkor 18-70 1:3.5-4.5 a sigma 24-70 2.8 and a very old Nikkor 70-300 1:4-5.6 but it has no VR and I find it really unreliable and often gives me soft images and is a nightmare to focus.

Any tips very welcome!

Jx
 
Looking at the other lenses you have, the 70-200mm is a no-brainer in my opinion - the quality will undoubtedly be several steps up the ladder from what the 18-200mm can offer, plus the extra speed of the 2.8 for OOF backgrounds...

Bear in mind the Mr Rockwell's personal opinion is just that; his personal opinion...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:thinking:

:thinking:

:thinking:

:lol:
Click to expand...

this.

70-200 all the way, especially for weddings...the 18-200 is no comparison, whatsoever. f2.8 is where it's at :P Mr rockwell evidently has small, girly hands so cares about things like weight and how hard it is to turn the zoom ring... bless :P
 
I honestly don't understand the question. How on earth you can compare theses two lenses is beyond me.

Let's get beyond the Ken bashing shall we. He's put plenty of work into that review: the factual side is accurate, and the opinion is opinion. Trying to justify your opinion is better than someone else's is like boxing a shadow. As Ken himself says, his reviews should be taken in context, and always with a little salt.

I'm sorry to say this, but the OP obviously doesn't understand that the two lenses are completely different. Do I need to point out the 3 times more cost of the 70-200? Or the constant aperture?

A little more homework required methinks.
 
Thanks, obviously I'm not stupid and realise the more expensive/constant aperture is the better lens, but after reading the Rockwell review of the 18-200 I suddenly doubted whether I needed the 70-200. I'm very easily influenced and it just gave me second thoughts. This site can be a bit harsh, thanks everyone though I'll stick with the 70-200 which was my original plan!
 
It's a fabulous piece of glass jeps, you won't be disappointed, unless you have to walk miles with it :lol:
 
after owning the 70-200 2,8 for only a week it is in a different league to the 18-200
 
Take some pic with an 18-200 then with a 70-200 F2.8 Nikon at 70mm and 200mm, load them into your favourite image viewer and you will realise that you don't need to ask anyone for advice! Images from the 70-200 at 200mm are simply stunning, but you will see the difference across the range, especially in lower light.
 
I have the 18-200 and have taken some fantastic shots ..but 2.8 wins hands down ....If you are not sure ...Hire both then make your mind up ...simple really and for people saying the 18-200 is rubbish .....well..I better not comment
 
jeps said:
Thanks, obviously I'm not stupid and realise the more expensive/constant aperture is the better lens, but after reading the Rockwell review of the 18-200 I suddenly doubted whether I needed the 70-200. I'm very easily influenced and it just gave me second thoughts. This site can be a bit harsh, thanks everyone though I'll stick with the 70-200 which was my original plan!
Click to expand...



Good plan :thumbs:
 
peterjones00 said:
I have the 18-200 and have taken some fantastic shots ..but 2.8 wins hands down ....If you are not sure ...Hire both then make your mind up ...simple really and for people saying the 18-200 is rubbish .....well..I better not comment
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone is aying the 18-200 is rubbish, just that if you have the money the 70-200 is the lens to have
 
... one thing nobody has asked (or said) thus far is which body the lens is going on...

the 18-200mm is a very good allround walkabout lens, but wouldn't use it for portraits - in this respect, even the 24-70mm is better (i'm talking nikon here - haven't tried the sigma).

colours saturation, for some reason, isn't as good many other nikon lenses (though you can compensate a bit by in-camera settings), and the bokeh (out-of-focus behaviour) is geneuinely weird, and i often find it distracting.

the 70-200mm fixes most of those problems, though you do lose the wide end of the lens. the weight & cost are a downside, but if you're primarily going to be using it for weddings, then this lens is really your only option of the two.
 
DekHog said:
Looking at the other lenses you have, the 70-200mm is a no-brainer in my opinion
Click to expand...

But then, so is Rockwell himself...:D

Get the 70-200/2.8...you will never look back.
 
I've owned both lenses, and to be honest I don't have a clue why K.R. is so bowled-over by the 18-200. He does seem to rate the D40 and the SB-400 highly, so go figure.

You will get irritated very quickly with only being able to shoot at f3.5-5.6 with the 18-200. With the 70-200, you can shoot at f2.8 at any focal length.

The bokeh and image quality of the 70-200 is vastly superior. For portrait phorography, it is *the* lens to have IMHO.
 
I have an 18-200VR and an 80-200 f/2.8 (the model without VR, prior to the 70-200's release). Maybe that's a better combo price-wise for you? No way I'd part with either, and have them on separate bodies at weddings
 
I have both, the 18-200 is great to take on holidays and general walkabout however the 70-200 blows it away. I scrapped though my first couple of weddings with the 18-200 but the 70-200 is a big leap forward when combined with a 24-70 which I see you have....on the down side it's also a big leap forward in terms of weight when you are carrying it around all day.

When are you intending to move into weddings...is this some time off? (at the least you'll need and extra body and a couple of flashes when you do). If it isn't for a while yet and your main interest at the moment is location shoots and portraits then you may be better off looking for a wide angle lens and a fast 50mm prime, buying good quality ones of both will cost you a bit more than a 18-200mm on its own will but it would still be a lot cheaper than the 70-200mm and you may get more use out of them....and if you then do go into weddings you’ll probably need these anyway.

The 70-200mm is possibly also starting to push on the long side for portraits, especially with a dx crop.
 
18-200mm had been described by some being a bit too soft
70-200 nice and sharp in comparison, you can still use a 1.4x TC to bring it up to near 300mm and still be able to stop it down to f4

Brear in mind Ken Rockwell wrote his original 18-200mm review in 2005 and it it he says its his favourite lens ever and is never off his D200.....then he said his D40 with the 50 or 35 was his fave, now he says the Leica M9 is his favourite.....
 
people opinions can be different and are liable to change.

the best thing to do is to test the two lens's side by side and see which one is best for you! by all means still take in all the feedback on here though :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top