Nikon lens

Zarch said:
Have you considered 2nd hand Will? A used Sigma 70-200 2.8 can be had for around the same price as a new Nikon 70-300 VR. I picked up mine for £350 in the classifieds.

Not sure you'd get that much going from 18-70 to 18-135 apart from a little extra reach, especially if its sharpness you seek? The usual next step after the 18-70 would be a 17-55ish 2.8 lens (Nikon, Tamron, Sigma)
Click to expand...

It would have to be 2nd hand I'm afraid. ( negotiations with the wife are at a delicate stage so don't want to push it😜). Last question on this as your all probably bit bored of it now. Am I correct in saying that you get better IQ from a lens that doesn't have as much of a range. E.g 18-200 wouldn't be as good as say 55-200?
 
bb40 said:
It would have to be 2nd hand I'm afraid. ( negotiations with the wife are at a delicate stage so don't want to push it��). Last question on this as your all probably bit bored of it now. Am I correct in saying that you get better IQ from a lens that doesn't have as much of a range. E.g 18-200 wouldn't be as good as say 55-200?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.
 
It really depends on the lens. some primes are shocking compared to a good zoom like the 50mm f1.8 (Canon one) vs 24-105mm f4L
 
wuyanxu said:
It really depends on the lens. some primes are shocking compared to a good zoom like the 50mm f1.8 (Canon one) vs 24-105mm f4L
Click to expand...

But to be fair that isnt usually the case.
 
So out of 18-200f3.5 @ 55-200 f.4 which would give better IQ. (Head starting to hurt now)
 
Rapscallion said:
But to be fair that isnt usually the case.
Click to expand...

True, also the fact the 2 lenses I named are in completely different price ranges. But I just found the 50/1.8 to be pointless when it has to be at f5.6 to be sharper than image stabilised zoom lens at f4.

It was just a post to prevent sweeping statement. Equal value primes are much much better than zooms, but generally cheap lenses are never good, you get what you pay for.

Phil Young said:
I've had both and you're really splitting hairs in the sharpness department.

Benefits of the 55-200: slightly sharper. Cheaper.

Benefits of the 18-200: range, build quality, much closer focusing, manual override.
Click to expand...

You forgot faster AF motor, VR allowing for video work on the wide end and more than sharp enough to keep everyone happy, apart from pixel peepers.

End of the day, as I said, you get what you pay for. 18-200 is as sharp, yet with convenience of do it all in one lens. I think it's worth every penny. (went from 18-55 + 55-200 to 18-200 before switching camp)
 
the idea of 18-200 lens is to replace both 18-55, 55-200 kit lens into one lens. it is quite similar to both lens IQ wise. ideas been you don't have to change lens while on the move or people coming from P&S who doesn't like changing lens and not happy with the range of zoom offered by 18-55 kit lens. I know people brought a dslr and never took their kit lens off.
 
Superzooms and primes/short-range zooms have their respective and very different places, but what separates them is time.

Superzooms save lens-swapping time in the field, but cost a lot of time in the digital darkroom eking out the detail, smoothing out the poor bokeh, reducing high ISO noise (due to smaller/variable apertures) etc.

Primes and short-range zooms carry risks to opportunity and cost time in the field, and lots of weight as well, but require less time in PP workflow to achieve acceptable or excellent results.

It's give and take. What one gives in the field, it takes in PP, and vice versa.
 
This is where the old camera club used to come in handy - someone always had that bit of kit you fancied upgrading to and were more than willing to let you have an hour or two trying it out. I would agree absolutely with the above comments regarding the versatility of the 18-200, and of course the IQ is perfectly acceptable otherwise it wouldn't be the (almost?) classic lens that it is. I would add that I'd avoid the VR, the lens creep is annoying - as has been said, the VRII makes life a lot easier.
 
Phil Young said:
I've had both and you're really splitting hairs in the sharpness department.

Benefits of the 55-200: slightly sharper. Cheaper.

Benefits of the 18-200: range, build quality, much closer focusing, manual override.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to split hairs Phil just wanting to know with IQ being supposedly better on the shorter range why there is a big difference in price but you've probably answered that with build quality and faster af.
 
bb40 said:
I wasn't trying to split hairs Phil just wanting to know with IQ being supposedly better on the shorter range why there is a big difference in price but you've probably answered that with build quality and faster af.
Click to expand...

Lol I wasn't saying YOU are doing anything. Figure of speech meaning they are very similar.
 
Back to the OP. Have you considered the 16-85?
 
I think Phil's points are very refreshing to read. I too own an 18-200, which has made some stunning shots. I am using my primes more because I feel I owe it to myself to try both styles.

The only thing I have found lacking on the 18-200 is the aperture! Of course, like most aspiring improvers, I gag for a trinity trio as the 18-200 is just too slow.

I too think we all obsess too much about "sharpness". Phil has more than amply demonstrated that the 18-200 can give great results in the right hands. The 17-55 kit and the 50-200 are also superbly sharp too, they just lack fast apertures and build quality/weather sealing (as does the 18-200).

People take photos not cameras or lenses. I have just watched McCullen - a film about Don McCullen, one of the worlds top documentary photographers (who happened to work on many wars). Very moving and insightful and very highly recommended indeed (I am a BAFTA member). Not a mention of lens sharpness..... In fact he seemed to be using some camera covered in gaffa tape....

Just a thought....

Carry on

Just say Cheese?
 
Phil Young said:
He has a 18-70...?
Click to expand...

He was also considering the 18-135 VR, just thought i'd point out another (generally highly regarded) possibility with VR in a similar range.

EDIT
Since the OP wants sharpness over convenience, the 16-85 and 70-300 vr will be among the best you can get for the money for that range. Assuming that is you don't want to go to 2.8 zooms or primes. The Tamron 70-300 vc is also highly regarded though i haven't used it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rapscallion said:
He was also considering the 18-135 VR, just thought i'd point out another (generally highly regarded) possibility with VR in a similar range.

EDIT
Since the OP wants sharpness over convenience, the 16-85 and 70-300 vr will be among the best you can get for the money for that range. Assuming that is you don't want to go to 2.8 zooms or primes. The Tamron 70-300 vc is also highly regarded though i haven't used it.
Click to expand...

But you're talking as if there is a world of difference between them...

I just think the word sharpness is just too strong here and the other benefits vs drawbacks are not being considered enough, which is fine when it's not your own money.
 
Phil Young said:
But you're talking as if there is a world of difference between them...

I just think the word sharpness is just too strong here and the other benefits vs drawbacks are not being considered enough, which is fine when it's not your own money.
Click to expand...

Theres a considerable difference between the 70 300 vr and non vr. I understand you had an 18-200, i also owned one, but it is not good advice to offer an 18-200 if the desired goal is sharpness over convenience. If that is the goal then i stand by suggesting the 2 lenses i have.

;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rapscallion said:
Theres a considerable difference between the 70 300 vr and non vr. I understand you had an 18-200, i also owned one, but it is not good advice to offer an 18-200 if the desired goal is sharpness over convenience. If that is the goal then i stand by suggesting the 2 lenses i have.

;)
Click to expand...

+1
 
Rapscallion said:
Theres a considerable difference between the 70 300 vr and non vr. I understand you had an 18-200, i also owned one, but it is not good advice to offer an 18-200 if the desired goal is sharpness over convenience. If that is the goal then i stand by suggesting the 2 lenses i have.

;)
Click to expand...

He wants a walkabout lens. Sharpness and convenience goes together, the 18-200 is not a soft lens and are you telling me you think that the 70-300mm is that much sharper, it warrants compromising the range and close focusing for??

If I zoomed in to 100% I'm sure I could see a difference and perhaps I'm just a bit rubbish but as a general walkabout lens, we've you are shooting people, animals, buildings, flowers, insects, abstracts etc I would have thought myself to be bonkers to choose a tele zoom which is limited to 70mm widest, over a sharp superzoom.
 
Phil Young said:
He wants a walkabout lens. Sharpness and convenience goes together, the 18-200 is not a soft lens and are you telling me you think that the 70-300mm is that much sharper, it warrants compromising the range and close focusing for??

If I zoomed in to 100% I'm sure I could see a difference and perhaps I'm just a bit rubbish but as a general walkabout lens, we've you are shooting people, animals, buildings, flowers, insects, abstracts etc I would have thought myself to be bonkers to choose a tele zoom which is limited to 70mm widest, over a sharp superzoom.
Click to expand...

Phil, we're going round the houses now. He wanted sharpness over convenience, hence my suggestions.
 
Phil Young said:
Just to be clear..OP didn't say that actually.

He wanted to know if the difference in IQ was justifiable.
Click to expand...


Post 6

Thanks for reply mick. I only have 18-70 3.5 -5.6 and 70-300 but that's the now vr one. Looking to upgrade that as well. Looking for more sharpness than convenience. I've got 2 bodies so not changing lenses to often. The 18-70 is a good lens and I get good results from that. The 70-300 is a bit of s clunker tho but pics are pretty good from that to. I was looking for something good in midrange but can't afford to go to 2.8 just yet. Wife says no chance.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Young said:
Very strange...I'm on my phone but have gone through this thread 3 times and can't find that post.

Not trying to be difficult, genuinely can't see it.

Just for my own piece of mind I will check on my laptop later.
Click to expand...

Just take my word for it. ....

Otherwise
 
With regards to the 16-85 lens I assume we're talking building quality again for there to be such a huge price difference to the 18-70. Always found the 18-70 to give very good results and don't think the price difference would warrant going go the 16-85. I was looking for something in between my range so the 18-200 seems to fit the bill. One question on the vrii version with the zoom lock. Does it only lock when it's fully in or can it be locked at any point thru the range.

Thanks again guys for all your input. 👍
 
bb40 said:
With regards to the 16-85 lens I assume we're talking building quality again for there to be such a huge price difference to the 18-70. Always found the 18-70 to give very good results and don't think the price difference would warrant going go the 16-85. I was looking for something in between my range so the 18-200 seems to fit the bill. One question on the vrii version with the zoom lock. Does it only lock when it's fully in or can it be locked at any point thru the range.

Thanks again guys for all your input. 👍
Click to expand...

Re the 16-85. yes it is built well, and as you have noticed relatively pricey but sharp.

And yes the lock on the 18-200 is just at the 18 end. Take it easy BB
 
Rapscallion said:
Just take my word for it. ....

Otherwise
Click to expand...

Quite annoying that it looks like this on my phone:

313461_10152664440145305_1648830309_n.jpg


Had I of seen the full post I would have taken a different manor. Apologies for stating it wasn't said - genuine mistake!
 
bb40 said:
One question on the vrii version with the zoom lock. Does it only lock when it's fully in or can it be locked at any point thru the range.

Thanks again guys for all your input. 👍
Click to expand...

Will, think about weather the zoom lock is worth the extra money - mine locks at 18mm anyway and as Wuyan demonstrated, it is quite stable. A zoom look would just be annoying for me personally as I don't feel it's needed and when I hade to use it I would have to remember to unlock it.

It creeps when you put it past something like 24mm but then that would be the same with the VR2 version...
 
Phil Young said:
Will, think about weather the zoom lock is worth the extra money - mine locks at 18mm anyway and as Wuyan demonstrated, it is quite stable. A zoom look would just be annoying for me personally as I don't feel it's needed and when I hade to use it I would have to remember to unlock it.

It creeps when you put it past something like 24mm but then that would be the same with the VR2 version...
Click to expand...

I was looking at some video reviews of both versions last night and it seems to only creep when totally vertical point up or down. So I don't really see the benefit of the zoom lock if u can only lock it when it's fully in apart from when your walking about with it.
 
excepts where you had your camera with the lens around your neck and then the lens extended as you walk along. :shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top