DSLRUsers.com

may i ask you all for your feedback on both of these lenses??

experience, etc

they both do very well on kenrockwel.com and i am looking to complement my 12-24mm

ta

7

Do you want a Ford people mover or an Aston Martin ?

I own both, and love em both, but for different reasons

For image quality, focusing speed & accuracy and rock-solid construction, there are few lenses better than the 70-200VR.

For versatility combined in a compact, portable package, the 18-200VR is king.

7, if you use no other lens reviews, try this one http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

There is a sticky here with a list of them. Ken Rockwell is not always viewed as the most accurate reviewer





list of review sites: http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=2888

gstark, please don't use the "f" word it's dirty

so i suppose that leaves me with having to put up with the Aston for an afternoon

interesting reading in the nature of photography site, i may have to invest some time in getting two lenses to cover from the 12-24 range all the way up to the 200mm

I have the 18-200 and can say it is a fantastic lens. Its flexibility is what makes it brilliant. I think it is well suited if you want to have one lens for most occasions. Coupled with a wide angle (such as your 12-24), you've got most basis covered.

I guess at the end of the day it depends if you have a need for anything between 24 - 70 if you decide to go with the 70-200. Maybe pick up a 50mm prime and you would be set...

My 18-200 Nikon, Australian purchase in March from ECS, is now up for sale as I want a 500-mm lens for chasing birds..... This 18-200 lens is as new, all the bits and box with the Nikon warranty card not yet filled in and sent will be supplied...... will have to find some pix's taken to post, as there are not a lot, as I have not used this lens very much..... as new and only looked at, asking $895

7zark7 wrote:gstark, please don't use the "f" word it's dirty

Did the subtlety within my response pass you by?

I have owned both. Dont bother with either!!!

Get the 200 f/2 and you can use my 70-200VR anytime you like

Seriously though, while travelling, I do regret not having the 18-200. So long as you dont need super fast, it would be very versatile, and for you 7, may suit your needs.

I'm in HK tonight, do you want me to get you one (200mm f/2)?

no i was just being silly...

for me, clarity and colour brilliance are very important, therefore i am leaning more toward the 70-200.

then i suppose the 35mm to something or other would be the next logical step from the 200mm.

oooooh why did i pick the expensive hobby????

sorry, you asked for feedback, at 200mm, f5.6 is ok. Just ok, but for the versatility, its a goer.

Perhaps you can help us by telling us what you want this lens for? Another possible alternative might be a 28-200, they are very cheap, and may fill the void in your kit until you know what you want? Maybe check out the 70-300?

For oh so wonderful qualities, get the 70-200

OZ, both you and I know i shold not be tempted with such things.... shame on you

well that's the thing, i don't know what i will use it for...

i want to have the reach to take photo's of <insert something> for <insert reason>

if it's long reach it's preferably fast, i can see some motor sport and snow sport heading my way, especially with 10cm of snow at Hotham 17 days before the start of the season!!!

having said that i want to cover the midrange so i think i will end up getting two lenses here as i like to set up for a shot, compose it, shoot it, enjoy it.

having the happy snap qualities of the 18-200 seem a bit too digiclix in comparison to other lenses.

7zark7 wrote:having the happy snap qualities of the 18-200 seem a bit too digiclix in comparison to other lenses.

Who said photography had to be hard?

I do not think you will be disappointed with the quality of the images that come out of the 18-200.

well that's the thing, i don't know what i will use it for...

i want to have the reach to take photo's of <insert something> for <insert reason>

From your comments above, it sounds like you don't even know what you need another lens for. Going for the 18-200 means that it will cover most situations you find yourself in.

I wouldn't waste money on an expensive lens if you don't even know if you need it.

I would recommend an F2.8 80-200mm. It will give better quality images than the 18-200 and is more useful in poor light. It may not be as versatile but versatility will alway compromise image quality.

Lightweight, versatile or speed and quality?
That thing doesn't really go together when you put into a lens. I wish they can break the rules of physics and make a 10-500mm f/1.8 lens in no larger than the 18-70mm kit lens...

You won't go wrong with the 70-200, but if you shoot more when you are on the run, the 18-200 will serve you better.

gstark wrote:Do you want a Ford people mover or an Aston Martin ?

Reminds me of a saying i heard....... god invented shit but ford made it move

cheers rob

hehehe, nice...


i think my mind is made up, Oz i'll pinch your 70-200 and i'll have a hunt around for something mid range.

kit will eventually become 3 lenses which will cover me given my approach to photography.

weight, etc not an issue, as colour and image are my priorities, therefore if i can ensure those two points with some fast glass i think i will be covered.

now to select the mid-range between 24mm and 70mm

Oh now i am drawn between the 17-55 for the "extension", the 18-70 for the range coverage


both are fast, obviosly there are differences, but what are the preferences??

7zark7 wrote:Oh now i am drawn between the 17-55 for the "extension", the 18-70 for the range coverage


both are fast, obviosly there are differences, but what are the preferences??

The 17-55 is a better lens in terms of build quality and speed, but the 18-70 is better in terms of portability, range and value.

Take your pick.

For range, my pick would be:

80-200 2.8 (preferably the 70-200, but if saving a few dollars to cover...)
24-70 2.8 - I have only used Stubbsy's, but I like it.
17-35 2.8 - I have it and I love it.

I have the 80-200 2 touch, non-AFS lens and think it is great.

Granted, you miss out on the <17mm end, but, from my perspective, this range suits quite well. If I want really wide, I can take two shots and stitch them together (granted, more PP work is involved).

The other benefit, based on my very well sourced rumour, is that all are based on a full-frame film/sensor plane, not DX which could come in useful in the future.

Given the two above I own, and if I had the 24-70, plus the one I lust (85 1.4) I would be a very happy camper, and quite a bit poorer.

The obvious downsides are:

1. Cost
2. Weight
3. Need for more frequent changes of lens.

I would gladly put up with the last two!
P

look at where you want to end up, and if you can be patient, buy piece by piece.

You have the Nikon 12-24mm. I understand from a good source, that you also have free rental access to a wide range of great glass.

Maybe you could pick the holes in what you have access to? For example, do you have a 2.8 lens at 17mm? You mentioned a mid range zoom, well, the 28-70 is for people. But, I suspect that you are more interested in events, so that leans more towards the 17mm end. And, there you have two choices, the 2.8 17-35, or the 17-55 (assuming you want new, and you want nikon). The 17-35 would be a great choice, but leaves you a little short with your current lens.

The 17-55 covers a very versatile range, and is relatively fast, and if its color, clarity, and bokeh are even half as good as the 28-70, I'd get the 17-55mm. Dont get the kit lens if you want to capture low light.

So, if the 200mm f2 is just out of budget, I'd suggest getting the 17-55 (I would not get it as I have the 28-70 and that covers my needs better, but I think you will enjoy the 17-55).

I think Alex in here got a great lens, think it was an older style 28-70 (similar build quality to the 85/1.4).

Oh, I'd also like to recommend the 300mm 2.8 VR for my/your motorsport needs...

or, what about a 24-120 VR. The VR will give you the ability to go to lower shutter speeds removing handshake.

hmm the 24-120mm i had not considered that,

let's have a quick think

3.5 pretty quick, additionally backed by VR

will cover a nice gap between my 24mm upwards

it won't blow the budget

we may have a winner

7zark7 wrote:hmm the 24-120mm i had not considered that,

let's have a quick think

3.5 pretty quick, additionally backed by VR

will cover a nice gap between my 24mm upwards

it won't blow the budget

we may have a winner

Take a look around the web for this lens, it is not really a highly regarded one. I believe many said that even the kit lens will outperform this lens in terms of optics in sharpness.

The VR, it will not help you on SPEED, but will help you to get on slower shutter speed, not faster shutter speed. ie. it cannot freeze moving objects at low lights.

I have the 24-120 VR and I find it to be a very good walk about lens and sharp.I know some members have found it to be soft but I must have a good one.

jeff

Jeff wrote:I have the 24-120 VR and I find it to be a very good walk about lens and sharp.I know some members have found it to be soft but I must have a good one.

Actually, I can think of only one person who used to dis this lens.

I use it too, and I find it an excellent compromise, permitting me to shoot to a half-second handheld.

I seem to have quenched my lens lust for the moment.
I have a Sigma 10-20, the 18-70 kit lens, the 80-200 2.8 theses three lenses get used 90% of the time. I also have the 50 1.4 for low light and a Sigma 105 2.8 for macro and a 2xTC for extra reach.
I really can't think of any photographic situation that i can't cover.

gstark wrote:

Jeff wrote:Actually, I can think of only one person who used to dis this lens.

Speaking of Loz where'd he go ?

Alpha_7 wrote:

gstark wrote:Actually, I can think of only one person who used to dis this lens.

Speaking of Loz where'd he go ?

He's been treading on toes and generally misbehaving himself over at digital.

My 24-120VR is not a bad one either, a good walk about lens.

I have had a play with the 70-200VR and loved it, butdidn't have long with it.
We bought the 18-200 VR for my wife and the D70.
She loves it. Mainly because she's not into changing lenses, but I'm working on it.
Here's a post I made some time ago, a photo with the 18-200, summing up what I think of it. Note the crop of the moon just under the main pic.

In my opinion -
It's fine for everyday pics. It's portable and versatile.
It does not compare with the 70-200VR in regard to quality.
Why consider these two lenses as an either-or option? They are in different classes.
If you can afford the 70-200, don't mind the weight, don't need the versatility or don't mind carrying a wider lens as well, and/or want the extra quality, go the 70-200 or as has been said, the 80-200 and save a bit of coin.
But as you are considering these 2 lenses you are probably looking for VR.
F stop in the 70-200VR or the 80-200 is 2.8, where the 18-200VR is 3.5 to 5.6 I think.

I cannot comment on the 24-120VR but others have, I have read about it elsewhere and would not consider it myself, again it depends on what you are looking for, what your budget is, what weight you want to carry etc etc...

Isn't it fun deciding on a lens?
Our next lens purchase? Either the 85 f1.4 or the 17-55 f2.8, or 70-200VR, or .... Hhmmm