DSLRUsers.com

Hi, just wanted to introduce myself to the forum and at the same time ask what would be a good purchase for a zoom lens. I currently don't have any Nikon body yet but am intending to get the d300 in the next few months. I was just wondering what is the better of the 2 lens (18-200mm VR and 70-200mm VR). Budget is not a option but I would like a idea if I really need to spend that much on the 70-200mm. Some of the pictures I intend to take are sports and car racing. Has anyone used both of these lens and can advise?

You can never go wrong with the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR!

It really depends.

If you want to only buy one lens, the 18-200VR is the one, no doubt about it. There is no other lens on the market that is as versatile, IMO.

If you already have a wide option and want the absolute best tele zoom lens for sports (as opposed to the best (only) super-tele zoom for sports, the 200-400), then it's the 70-200VR. The speed, autofocus speed, build quality and sharpness is right up there with the best. But only you can decide if it is worth the price (financial, size, weight).

In terms of quality there is simply no comparison as the 18-200 can be soft whereas the 70-200 is very sharp. However if you are looking for a versatile walkaround lens then the 18-200 would be very useful.

Hi and welcome.

First of all, please put a meaningful location into your profile. The first page, and the FAQ, explain this.

Now, to your question, these are very different lenses, and the price differential reflects those differences. The 18-200 is more flexible in terms of its focal length range, and it's smaller and lighter. Smaller and lighter is reflected in the build quality: it's not as solid, and certainly not of a professional quality. As has been said, it's a great walkaround lens, and that's its purpose.

The 70-200 is in a whole different league: it's heavier, and much more solidly built. More importantly, it's faster, optically: f/2.8 through the entire range vs a variable 5.6 ... This makes it usable in poor light. VR can help to mitigate this to some extent, but there is no substitute for optical speed. And while the 18-200 is mostly sharp, the 70-200 is sharp at every focal length, and at every aperture.

Let me put this into a different, but very valuable perspective for you. At the end of last year Nikon revised its pro zoom lens range, along with the introduction of the D3 body. The pro zoom lens range - full frame - now consists of the 14-24 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8.

See if you understand the message they're trying to send us?

i have owned both, with the addition of the 80-200 (non-VR). all are very good, and as said, if you only plan to own one lens, the 18-200 is a great choice for its "jack of all trades".

but for sports, as you mention, fast aperture at 2.8, adn focus speed, the 70-200 is the gold! unless VR and focus speed are critical, consider the optically similar/identical 80-200 at 60% of the cost of the 70-200.

As stated earlier, If you intend to buy just one lens, then the 18 - 200 is the one to get, but then why are you buying an SLR? The whole point of an SLR is that you can change lenses. The quality tends to be better, but that is because people who are prepared to go to the fiddle of changing lenses to get a better photo demand better quality.

I had the 18 - 200, and sorely miss it. I replaced it with the 24-70 2.8 as my walk about lens. Better glass, but it is amazing how often when out & about, I want more reach, or a wider perspective, or a closer view. I have other lenses to cater for those options, but if I am going in to the city for a day, or bushwalking for a week, do I really want to lug them all about, or sit down on the corner of George & Market to change the lens? No. I take one lens and make do. the 18 -200 was master at this. These days I take the 24 - 70 and grumble when I miss the shot.

If budget really isn't a consideration, I would seriously consider getting the entire line up Gary mentioned, and the 18-200. Put the 70-200 on when you go to the races, with the 24-70 in the bag. When you go on holiday (not specifically for photography), put the 18-200 on and leave the rest behind.

It really comes down to what you want to take photos of. All sorts of stuff, and can't afford or be bothered with multiple lenses, then the 18-200. Only detail shots of distant action, then the 70-200 (or longer!) is your beast. Wide open landscapes? 12 - 24 or similar Portraits? 50 0r 85 prime Bugs? 105 Micro. Stamps? 60 Micro (unless you already have the 105). A range of middle distance work: Candids, scenery, product shots etc then the 24-70. etc etc

Hi there, another Territorian I see

I'd go along with everything already said. I bought my D200 with the 18-200 as I didn't know where I was going. I still can't convince my self to sell it though as it is the best compromise lens you can get. I also own the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Like the others I keep the 24-70 on the camera most of the time now and comparing it to the 18-200 is just not an option. The new N lenses are fantastic, sharp, fast, close focusing and much better light transmission. The 18-200 is slow to focus, vignettes and can be soft, on the up side it's light and versatile.

Everyone thanks for your feed back .
From what has been mentioned I think my mind is set up in getting the 70-200 lens and then further down the track where finance permits i'll add those other lens into my accessories as from what Gary has mentioned. I plan to use the lens for the Singapore F1 later on this year so i've got abit of time to save up to buy my dslr body and the 70-200 lens.
Can anyone suggest what else I may need to get which would help benifit me in taking F1 pics?

ebarra8 wrote:Can anyone suggest what else I may need to get which would help benifit me in taking F1 pics?

Practise. I would suggest try taking a few panning shots at a local road, you will be surprised at what an art it is. Better to find out you can't pan now than in the middle of a 1.5 hr race. There are some great motorsport photographers on this forum, I would read through their posts and view their images for ideas.

Having just spent an entertaining weekend in Melbourne for the Grand Prix...

The 70-200 is a great start, though adding a 1.7x or 1.4x TC to the mix will give you a little bit of additional length that might be useful.

You have to decide whether you want:

1) Good angle, but with fences in the way (GA entry, by the fence)
2) No fences, but bad angle (grandstand seat)

It's a tough gig, but if you're close enough to the fence and have a long enough lens, you can get some passable shots. Forget about panning unless you can see over the fence.

Good luck!

dm_td5 wrote:Hi there, another Territorian I see

The 18-200 is slow to focus, vignettes and can be soft, on the up side it's light and versatile.

18-200 slow to focus? you gotta be kidding,if this lens is slow to focus what is the 80-400VR?

idleowen wrote:

dm_td5 wrote:Hi there, another Territorian I see

The 18-200 is slow to focus, vignettes and can be soft, on the up side it's light and versatile.

18-200 slow to focus? you gotta be kidding,if this lens is slow to focus what is the 80-400VR?

Actually, the 80-400, on a D300, acquires focus very bloody quickly. It's fast on the D200, but lightning fast on the D300. No longer an issue, not that it ever was - it's mainly an issue of technique.

gstark wrote:

idleowen wrote:

dm_td5 wrote:Hi there, another Territorian I see

Actually, the 80-400, on a D300, acquires focus very bloody quickly. It's fast on the D200, but lightning fast on the D300. No longer an issue, not that it ever was - it's mainly an issue of technique.

good enough reason for all of us to rush out and buy a D300 then!

so what technique is required to turn this lens into a fast focus lens for action photography? other than manual pre focusing and panning ? Just intrigued since I've trolled all the forums for some recommendations on a good long range zoom (for action sports) and despite my loyalty to Nikon it doesnt appear to be the 80-400. A couple of the 'leading' Netexperts on Nikon suggest its slow,as do most amateurs on forums..........I'd really like to buy this lens but I am discouraged by these opinions.
thks

Well, it depends on what sort of action you're hoping to shoot. Cars, yes. Cricket, yes. racing of any sort, yes.

Any type of football, basketball, hockey etc? No. IMO it won't be fast enough for that.

Basically where there is a certain amount of predictability about the action, the 80-400 will do admirably. Where you need to snap on focus very quickly in an unpredictable situation, that's where it will sometimes be a bit lacking.

There's a definite improvement in speed on the D300, but it still won't be as fast as the 70-200.

Glen thanks for the tip of checking out the motersports photographers. Hopefully I can get my camera before the Darwin V8 race in June and do some pratice shots for panning. But i guess that's the secret with photography practice makes perfect

Losfp thanks for the suggestion on a TC as i've got a grandstand seat i'll be over looking the fence line. Looks like i'll have bad angle but hopefully with the TC i can get some close up shots on where i'm sitting.

idleowen wrote: recommendations on a good long range zoom (for action sports)

Too bloody easy. There's no such thing.

If you want the absolute best, you get primes, rather than zooms. Zooms always have been and always will be, a compromise lens. Several lenses in that area, all of them expensive, and all of them hard to find.

The best zoom is generally regarded as the 70-200 f2.8 VR, with the 1.7 TC added if you want extra reach. That combo is faster than the 80-400, both in terms of response, as well as optically. Alternatively, go for the 200-400 f/4 VR, which is also faster in both realms than the 80-400.

What's that? You only want to spend PP1500 or thereabouts? In that case you go for the 80-400. You pay less, you buy more compromises.

A couple of the 'leading' Netexperts on Nikon suggest its slow,as do most amateurs on forums..........I'd really like to buy this lens but I am discouraged by these opinions.

Come along to one of our meets, and try it out for yourself.

It's slower than the 70-200, and it's slower than the 200-400. On a D70, it's slow, but not unusable. On a D300 it's about as responsive as a 70-200 on a D70. Ya pays ya money, and ya gets what ya pays for.

Usage: engage the focus limiter. Prefocus on where you're starting your shooting from, and wait until your subject comes into view, then track the subject.

Shoot with both eyes open so that you can see when subjects are going to be entering the frame. Or putting you into potential danger.

Let me tell you exactly how slow the lens is: I've used it, on a D70, to shoot F1 GP races. That's how slow it is: it can handle that.

And do remember that opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one. Most people who complain seem to be those who cannot - or have not - used one. Des's advice is good, and F1 GPs are predictable, as is most motorsport.

thks for the advice,I think i will join one of the next meets to try one out.
has anybody any experience of shooting sports that dont have a predictable path i.e. rugby / afl / football where its hard to prefocus (and dont have media accreditation to get upclose and personal)? what is your weapon of choice? apologies if this is slightly off the original topic.

i think I just saw the answer in losfp's post re AFL action shots...........for more unpredictive sports looks like the 70-200 (and tc) is the one for me............thks

I would go the 70-200 for that type of shooting anyday over the 18-200. (And Yes, I own both)

idleowen wrote:i think I just saw the answer in losfp's post re AFL action shots...........for more unpredictive sports looks like the 70-200 (and tc) is the one for me............thks

Yep, for footy of any sort, definitely the 70-200. The 200-400 is even better, but hellishly expensive, and good luck getting it into any national ground in the country

The secret to getting good footy photos?

1) get as close to the ground as you can - the lower the better
2) don't sit on the wing - the corner (~ the 50m arcs) or behind the goals

Welcome.

70-200VR 2.8 totally rocks.. Only used it on my D70, but it does a fine job. It's heavy which I like, sharp, and fast focusing. Can only imagine how sweet it would be on a D300 (lucky bastards). It's perfect for Drag Racing and also gets the job done for live band stuff (although a prime would be optimal). 95% of pics on my site were taken with this lens.

James.

So we all understand and agree that the 70-200VR is great, but when it comes to it being compared to a Sigma 70-200mm, everybody has there own opinion on these two lens.

I think the Sigma lenses are a pretty good alternative for budget challenged folks like myself. I would never doubt that the Nikkor's are a better alternative but I'm in the position of not working, not feeling up to working, hence having no dosh BUT still wanting to have and more importantly USE photographic toys.

To date I have the Sigma 105 macro and the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 which arrived an hour ago (Thanks Gary & poon) and I have the Bigma 50-500mm on order. The next lens to arrive in my kit bag (much later this year) will be the Sigma 70-200m f/2.8.

I would love to have the Nikkor alternatives for all of these lenses but my finances for hobby entertainment do not allow it. In the future I may well be able to buy Nikkors and the buying twice will not have bothered me as I will have had the use and pleasure from the lenses.

At least I have a Nikon body rather than a Sigma one.

i have to admit that i do not own either of the lenses in question, but i have used both of them. if this is not enough for u to take my opinion srsly then STOP reading.

18-200 VR - it is a great walk around lens, awesome range and small enough to be easy to carry around all day BUT it is way to soft on a D300, esp when the D300 is straight out of the box. I was shocked to see how soft it was, and it kinda made me change my mind about gettin this lens, as a result i bought the Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, now i will have either one of the two lenses on my D300, and i will carry my Tamron 70-300 in case i want reach

70-200 VR - I WANT THIS LENS, it is a workhorse, i love it and it is optically brilliant, not to mention easy to use. it is quick, sharp and balances nicely off the end of a D300 or even a D80. BUT the range is limiting, as a walk around lens it is not my first choice, but for the purposes or motorsport and general sports photog then it is perfect. A friend has it with the TC-17 and has produced some fantastic shots through the fence at the Aust GP