DSLRUsers.com

18-200mm VR f/3.5 - 5.6
18-70mm f/3.5 - 4.5

Does anybody know how these two lenses compare in those focal distances in which they can both achieve?

i was wanting to keep my 18-70 kit and purchase a 70-200 2.8vr
but just read about the 18-200vr and it has got me stuck..
having that kind of range and on one body sounds pretty nice
and would be so convenient.. focus's pretty close also

do you think it'd be silly to buy the 18-200 and the 70-200 2.8
and dump the 18-70 kit?

I have the 18-200vr and the 80-200 and use both at times, but mostly the 18-200. I got rid of the kit lens as I didn't ever use it after I bought the 18-200 but I would say that they are quite similar quality, with the kit lens being perhaps slightly sharper (and smaller). The 80-200 2.8 seems sharper to me than the 18-200 but you can't beat the versatility of the 18-200. Hope this makes sense!

If you want one lens with a focal range for 90% of situations eg when you are traveling then get the 18-200. You will compromise on image quality though.

some one in another thread mentioned that the 18 - 200 is great for finding out what focal lengths you use most often. This means after a period of time you could determine which of the 2.8 zooms would best fit your needs above and beyond the 18 - 200.

I have both and like both!

I think the 18-70 is ever so slightly better quality between 18-70, smaller and lighter. On the other hand, the 18-200 has obviously more range and VR.

I like having the 18-70 around as a small lens I can slap on the camera for parties and whatnot (plus the 18-200 is really my wife's).. But you could easily get by with just the 18-200 in that range. I will hang onto my 18-70 until I get a fast wide zoom though, like a 17-35 or 17-55 etc

marvin: that made perfect sense, cheers


olrac: i think lightroom has a feature where it scans through all your images and tells you what focal lenghts you most often use??.. i could be wrong though, it could be another program

losfp: nice idea
i think i might do that
keep the kit lens, and replace it when i eventually upgrade to the
17-35mm & 28-70mm


it'd just be nice to be able to take the camera out with the 18-200
without having to lug a whole bag of heavy gear around

cheers everyone

my d40x came with the 18-55 and 55-200. While they were good, I thought swapping lenses to be the most annoying thing in owning a dslr. Also, it means you increase issues like dust and possibility of damage.

So I bought the 18-200 and sold the kit lenses. The quality is the same, the convenience is not. The main reason for buying it is as a walkabout lens when I don't want to bring anything else.

I think when I get around to getting a 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 that I will still keep the 18-200 for those times I don't need 'pro' gear.

mickey wrote:I think when I get around to getting a 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 that I will still keep the 18-200 for those times I don't need 'pro' gear.

Do you think there will be such a time?

My experience is that once, having used the best glass that I have, it's very difficult to go backwards and accept lesser quality.

With the kit lenses such as you've described, this is not an issue. But once you graduate to the better glass ....

I have the 18-70 nikon and 18-200 nikon also ........ I use the 18-70 a lot, as it is very sharp, the 18-200 nikon VR I use on the D70 as a happy snap outfit........

gstark wrote:My experience is that once, having used the best glass that I have, it's very difficult to go backwards and accept lesser quality.

that's another great point
after sitting on my pc for most of the morning
and looking at my options
i decided to put the 18-200 on the end of my list

purely because as photographers
more options and quality is what we want

and if that means a little more inconvenience..so be it

gstark wrote:My experience is that once, having used the best glass that I have, it's very difficult to go backwards and accept lesser quality.

A lot of the time I choose small and light over pro glass. Maybe that's because my pro glass is bloody heavy and I tend to carry my camera for extended periods, but there are times when the Sigma 18-50/2.8 has significant attractions. I've been tempted to repurchase a 70-300/5.6 to go with my 70-200/2.8, just because it's so much lighter. Lugging 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 all f/2.8 around is an extra 5kg that some days I just don't need.

I have the 18-70 and never use it anymore. Mainly use the 28-70/ 2.8 and 70-200/ 2.8 both are great lenses!
I bought the 18-200 for a recent trip and its great! lightweight, compact and very versatile for travelling.

Best thing about the 18-200 is you can travel with one body and one lens. and no problems with getting it all onto carry on luggage!

gstark wrote:Do you think there will be such a time?

My experience is that once, having used the best glass that I have, it's very difficult to go backwards and accept lesser quality.

I understand where you're coming from, I guess I am taking moz and team piggy's POV in that sometimes you just want something that is compact and does everything. It is the reason 'superzoom' P&S cameras sell so well due to their versatility.

The times when someone wants the 'all-in-one' lens is when you're not sure what you'll need (and therefore cannot decide between a wide or tele lens to take) and size/weight are of greater importance limiting you to only one lens.

Mickey,

mickey wrote:I understand where you're coming from, I guess I am taking moz and team piggy's POV in that sometimes you just want something that is compact and does everything. It is the reason 'superzoom' P&S cameras sell so well due to their versatility.

Perhaps, but often you may find that the quality of the glass on some PHDs is way better than some of the cheaper glass that you might be using in your travels.

For instance, the glass on the CP5700 is superb.

But there's other reasons why you'll want a SLR in your hands: the performance of PHD cameras, when performance is needed, sucks big time.

I took three lenses with me to HK - the 85 f/1.4, the Siggy 10-20, and the 24-120VR.

I don't think the 24-120 even made it onto the front of the D200, and I was using either the Siggy or the 85 only. In fact, since getting the 85 and the 10-20, I hardly use the 24-120. Hmmmm ....

I'm almost at the point where I'm considering, in kitting out the 30D, I'm mostly going to be buying primes. Maybe the Siggy 30 /1.4, the Canon 85 /1.8, and just the Canon 10-22 for the wider end.

With just that glass, plus the 50 /1.8 (which I already have on the Canon) you have a fair degree of flexibility, low light capabilities, and light weight, albeit at the cost of reach.

The times when someone wants the 'all-in-one' lens is when you're not sure what you'll need (and therefore cannot decide between a wide or tele lens to take) and size/weight are of greater importance limiting you to only one lens.

See above: I think that two or three primes will weigh about the same as a typical do-it-all zoom, but will provide better quality images (always has been the case) with slightly less flexibility.

A friend of mine offered me his 18-70mm kit lens as he bought an 18-200mm VR, so to take advantage of that I had to get myself a Nikon dSLR.

By the time I got around getting my D40x, it cost about the same with the 18-55mm kit lens, so I got that too. It's really light and small, but the 18-70mm was more fun even at dinners.

Alas 70mm was never long enough for what we wanted to do, so we bought the 18-200mm VR we planned on getting anyway and will be our "holiday" lens for our Singapore trip. Maybe I should pick up an 18-135mm to complete the set.

While I believe better quality glass would be nice, I also prefer something that would give me most options as quickly as possible. I would find it a hassle to keep changing lenses unless it was really necessary and I'm just a hobby shooter anyway. The 18-200mm VR does dwarf the D40x a bit, but it's great otherwise.

I'll leave the primes for another day as we hone our photographic skills and save up a bit first!

I recently borrowed an 18 -200Vr for a week travelling in Souith Oz and whilst it is very usefull, I did not like the end results. It is nowhere near as sharp as the 18-70 and to be honest I was very dissapointed with it. I would never buy one.

Is it not as sharp in the 18mm to 70mm range as the 18-70mm only, are you referring to the longer end?

Broadbean - correct it is not as sharp in the 18-70 range (the only one for a valid comparison). However I also think that it is a tad soft over the rest of the range as well.

Well, I should keep the 18-70mm then!

Maybe instead of another lens, my next investment should be another Nikon body so my wife (really who the D40x and 18-200mm was bought for anyway) and I could both take pics at the same time with dSLRs.

these are all extremely useful opinions and by the looks of it not only to myself.
just wanna thank all very much for contributing


personally i've decided to not go for the 18-200
and save my $ for better quality 2.8 glass