Nikon 18-200vr ??

F

Foto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,this is my first post,I have a Sigma 18-200 DC, which i am using with a D50.I am now in the position to replace it with the Nikon 18-200VR,am i going to see any benefits to warrant the extra cash or should i get something else?
Cheers:wave:
 
Hopefully someone with nikon knowledge will be along soon.

The zoom range may be convenient but I'd have thought something with a wider aperture like f2.8 would be a better - more for image quality and low light performance.
 
Hi,funny you should say that,im looking at the Sigma 50-150 f2.8.
 
what do you like shooting?

I just got a 35-105/2.8 for portraits and weddings.
 
If you edit your first post then click 'go advanced' you can edit the thread title - you might do better with something like 'Nikon 18-200VR opinions needed'... or something else that gives an idea what the thread is about ;)
 
The compromise with super-telephotos compared to dedicated zooms is quite huge. Distortion is geatly enhanced and image quality suffers. If you are going to be spending £450-£500 on a lens for the long end then look for something in the f/2.8 aperture. The Sigma 50-150 has been openly received providing a 75-225mm FOV. Alternatively the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 can be had for less than £500. I recently purchased this lens from Icecavern on here and can whole heartedly say that it is an impressive performer, albeit a little dated looking (care?).

Have a nosey here. This site provides very good reviews and information on many lenses.

King.
 
Foto - Is the 18-200mm going to be your only lens? If yes then the Nikon has no peers imho - If (like me) you want a bit more reach (zoo / ponds / etc) then 200mm isn;t enough & I have the 70-300mmVR which is a cracker also imho
I agree with the f2.8 comments but then you are in very expensive & heavyweight territory ...
HTH - Paul ;)
 
PaulBoy said:
Foto - Is the 18-200mm going to be your only lens? If yes then the Nikon has no peers imho - If (like me) you want a bit more reach (zoo / ponds / etc) then 200mm isn;t enough & I have the 70-300mmVR which is a cracker also imho
I agree with the f2.8 comments but then you are in very expensive & heavyweight territory ...
HTH - Paul ;)
Click to expand...

Don't listen to him, he doesn't have a camera. :lol: Only kidding - I agree with PaulBoy.

I'm sure the 18-200mm is very convienient (in fact I want one for days when I don't want to be changing lenses all the time) but really you need to decide whether it's worth it for you in particular. Remember if you have the kit lens (18-55mm) and the 55-200mm VR you get the same range for about £200 less! And apparently image quality would be better too - though I'm not sure that's much of a factor unless you're being very picky as I've heard people say the difference in quality is not that noticable.
 
Personally I think the Nikon 18-200 VR is a superb walkabout lens, including all of it's optical shortcomings (which are relatively few). However, if you already have the Sigma I don't think the addition of the VR would make it worth investing in. You don't really need VR at the short end, and if the long focal lengths are important then perhaps a 70-300 VR might be better?

One option might be to hold onto your 18-200 as a walkabout "cover everything" option, but add something complementary with more specific gains - such as 70-300 VR for longer end plus VR, and/or Sigma 30mm F1.4 which is an excellent performer in low light, and optically good.

What sort of things interest you photographically? That might give some pointers as to which options might fit for you?
 
Hi,thanks for all the input guys,i mainly seem to be photographing children's parties and live bands.
 
In that case the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 would be an almost ideal choice. Its probably the focal lenght/fov I would work with in those situations.

King.

EDIT: I actually held one in a local shop and had a fiddle on a D200. It is nice and compact for the focal lenght in provides, the obvious advantage of the DX format :).
 
Well, I own 18-200mm, 70-200mm VR, and 17-55mm. My last outing was in Bristol Balloon Fiesta, i must say 18-200mm come in handy. But the quality doesn't live as high as the others lens of mine. If you need to constantly change your zoom range, I prefer to suffer a little quality just for the extra candid moment. I recalled days without 18-200mm, I was forced to swap lens when and missed out a great deal of candid moment.
 
I think for kids parties, on digital at least 50mm would be too long. It's portrait length equivalent which is fine for close shots, but would be very restrictive when you need to get the whole sweep in. The F2.8 would give one stop benefit over the 18-200, whereas a VR lens would give you three or four stops in low light (not good for freezing kids movement though!). That's where I think a fast wide prime like the Sigma would be good - the F1.4 will give you a much faster shutter, and the wider aspect allows you to step back or step in, depending on the action.

If okay using a flash then more options are available, but I'd still think a wider option (at least 30mm, and even down to 18mm on digital) would be invaluable for you in those circumstances.

Hope it helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top