Which Zoom - 70-300mm, 80-200, or 18-200mm

[jean melissa]

I have a D70s. 18-70mm kit lens. 50mm/1.8. Purchasing a 105mm macro. Next

purchase... a zoom lens. Would love to hear your recommendations on this

buy. Considering the 70-300mm, 80-200, or 18-200mm. Thanks for your feedback

on this email and all of the other ones I have posted over the last several

weeks. Your insight has been invaluable and very much appreciated! Jeannie

[patertech]

Based on what you already have I would suggest 80-200. I just got 18-200 and I'm not impressed; good traveling lens. Did you consider 70-200?

[w._ditto__iii]

Jeannie, Jesse is 100% right; the 18-200 is fine for walking around and cutting weight, but there is NO comparison in image quality , and after all, THAT is what we do this for, not for convenience....the other 70-300 will also be a big disappointment if compared...go for the 80-200, get a mono-pod, and you'll love it ( yes, the 70-200 is also a great choice, for a LOT more money)

[kurt_garcia]

I can tell you that the availability for the 18-200 is low. I ordered a D200/18-200 kit on March 31, 2006 and have not received it.

 

I do have a friend that can't stop raving about his Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR Lens.

 

Good luck

[hayward]

The 80-200mm or 70-200mm AFS VR will provide the best optical quality and the best low-light capability, but will also be the most expensive. The 80-200mm autofocus is slower.

 

The 70-300mm is a good bit less expensive than the above and provides extra reach. I'd buy it if you were shooting sports and wildlife outdoors.

 

I haven't owned the 18-200mm, but I'd doubt it compares to the above.

[markgooding]

My experience with the 70-300G (the cheap one) was that is was that the autofocus was as slow as treacle through as sieve - not a good lens if you want to photograph anything moving faster than a tortoise! I now have the 70-210D because I wanted something with a fast autofocus. It seems a pretty good lens. But is chosing a lens it really depends what you want to use it for as to what aspects of the lens matter.

 

www.kenrockwell.com has some useful reviews. I did find another website with lens reviews which was awesome, but I can't find it now. Helpful huh? It had a review forum for each nikon lens. Wish I could find it again.

[j_c38]

70-300 both versions are ok at best. I own the D version, its collecting dust as a back-up. I've heard the 18-200 is ok. Very versitile, but image quality is so so. 80-200 is an excellent lens. Great for low light situations. Fast focus. I looked at this lens but opted for the 70-200VR. The 70-200 VR is nice, but a bit more then any of the lenses mentioned.

 

Of the three, 80-200 no questions asked. Ecspecailly if you are looking at quality.

[hayward]

Mark, are you thiknking of www.nikonlinks.com ?

[michaelschrag]

Or he could be thinking of this site....http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[michaelschrag]

or http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

but most probably....http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

Seriously, Jeannie, if you go to these sites and do some reading you will get more information than posting here. For example, fredmiranda has a listing for many nikon lenses and within the listing is a forum for each lens with literally hundreds of user reviews by people who actually own the lens.

[kam_bansal]

Jeannie,

 

I say the 18~200. I've been using this lens for about 1 month now, took about 1 billion shots in Hong Kong. Worked very well. Quality? All great shots. I like the lens because it is light for its range (IMHO), and I use it. I have owned the larger 80~200/F2.8, and it's awesame glass, but due to wieght, I stopped using it. This lens on the other hand, I can hold all day (okay, kneck strap!) and actually use it!

 

They are all good lens.

 

~Kam (^8*

[klix]

Like someone else said, the 70-200mm AFS VR is the best, but only if you actually do use it. I just came back from a trip where I lugged the 70-200 AFS VR and other equipment. A lighter rig would have been more comfortable, but now that I'm home and looking at the pictures, I am incredibly glad that the I brought the 70-200 along.

[hiro]

In between the 70-300s and the 80-200 in many ways. Image quality and autofocus speed is closer to the 70-300s. Weight is in the middle. Priced about the same as the 70-300ED. Nice F4 thru the zoom range. Feels well made. Definitely not for most. But for some a nice compromise.

[scott_rushing]

I have the 70-300G and while its ok, at the 300mm end I have trouble getting anything really sharp. I'm wanting to replace it and looking at the same lenses you are plus a Sigma 80-400 OS lens, all between the $800-$1000 range. My concern on the 80-200 f/2.8 and the sigma are the weight. They're heavy. So factor that in. The 18-200mm seems to be a good everyday lens.

[john_layton]

Jeannie, in terms of efficiency, bulk, and cost - you might consider selling the 18-70 and

purchasing the 18-200VR. You already have the 50/1.8 as a wonderful available light

lens, plus the super sharp macro, and the 18-200 performs pretty much the same as the

18-70 in that range.

 

But it really depends on your style (or styles) of working.

 

I own both the 80-200 and the 18-200, and while I certainly agree with others that the

80-200 can perform at a higher level than the 18-200 - this isn't always the case. In a

"walking around" situation without a tripod, during times of challenging but often

wonderful light, I often find that I get a better photo, especially if I need the depth of field

afforded by a "middle value" f-stop, when I use the 18-200 with the VR function activated.

I can be fairly consistent with the VR lens at the 200mm position at 1/15th of a second at

f/8, for example, whereas this consistency if impossible with the 80-200, given that I

need the same magnification and depth of focus.

 

I find the 18-200 is also great for quickly changing situations over which I have no control

- where the interruption of changing a lens often means the loss of crucial photo

opportunities. Knowing that I've "got myself covered" in these situations gives me a bit of

extra confidence that I won't miss anything, nor do I have to worry about getting dust

inside the camera and on the CCD.

 

On the other hand, if I can afford to carry the extra weight around, and if I have the time to

set up my tripod, or if I know that I'll need a higher shutter speed and/or minimal depth in

the telephoto range, I'll use my 80-200.

 

Keep in mind that with every decision comes compromise. Sometimes I think that my

"dream outfit" would be two D-200 bodies, one with a 17-50 2.8, the other with a 70-200

2.8VR - with maybe a 60 macro in my bag. But for now, a single body with the 18-200

goes a long way to giving me what I need, for many situations, and cannot be beat in

terms of efficiency, handiness, and cost - so much so that even if I could afford my "dream

outfit" - I think I'd still hang onto the 18-200.

 

But having said the above, you will not be disappointed with the 80-200. Personally, I

always balk at the size and weight of this lens, but am very thankful when I need its large

aperture performance.

 

So - if you find yourself being more deliberate and methodical - instead of needing to be

"versitile and spontaneous" - maybe go for the 80-200. But in terms of a "ready for

(almost) anything" lens - the 18-200 cannot be beat!

 

Hope this helps!

[zhi_da_zhong]

If you need to photograph fast moving subjects or want more background blur, then the

80-200/2.8 would be much better because of its larger aperture. The larger aperture will

also enable faster, more accurate focusing in low light, if that matters to you. Otherwise, I

think the 18-200 would be just fine.

[chansonbleu]

Jeannie,

 

My experiance with the 70-300mmG lens has been ok. I bought it used for about $100. (the cost of a 50mm1.8 new) and have had a lot of fun with it. I don't try to track fast moving subjects or shoot it in low light. But on the odd ocasion when I need a telephoto zoom it does the job. Here is a shot taken with the D70 and 70-300mmG at 300mm.

 

Steve<div></div>

[markgooding]

Thanks for the suggestions - helpful links even if not the badger I was looking for. I think (how vague am I?) the site I was refering to is www.photographyreview.com

 

for nikon toys:

http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-6/befid-96323/nm-20/pgnum-1/keyword-Nikon/productlistcrx.aspx

 

cheers,

 

mark