AF-S DX VR 18-200mm, 3,5-5.6G IF-ED vs AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED ?

[ken_young7]

Hi all,

 

seems both of these lenses have had quite good reviews. I like the idea of a

general purpose lense such as the 18-200, yet i'd also like to do some

portrait work with it, and I've read that the 24-120 is slightly better in

that regard? am beginning to think the 24-120 might actually be sufficient as

a pretty good general purpose lens in itself?

 

what are your thoughts?

[shymon_shlafman]

I would vote for 18-200 mm. Both lenses have the same maximum aperture but don't forget that in 18-200 lens you have VR, which may be very useful in low light conditions!

[hugh_davis]

I'd second Shymon. Portrait performance ought to be about the same, and the extended range both ways on the 18-200 would make it more versatile for other subject matter.

[tregoures]

Hi Ken,

 

I have the 24-120 AF-S VR. A very nice general purpose lense. I bought it because I shoot film AND digital and the 24-120 is a FF lense.

 

If you shoot only digital go for the 18-200 AF-S VR DX.

 

BTW the 24-120 and the 18-200 are not very good portrait lenses. If I were you I would also buy the 50 1.4 (or the 85 1.8 but it might be a little long).

 

Shymon, the 24-120 AF-S VR HAS VR!

 

Cheers,

 

Nicolas.

[dan_brown4]

I shot the 18-200 on Sat, in the camera shop. Just shooting the wall/ceiling line and

viewing in the display of the camera revealed absured wavy distortion at several focal

lengths. Why do people like this lens so much? I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

[walterh]

Dan - one possible explanation: some people like to shoot surfers riding waves - should be no problem there :-P

[mjt]

hi Ken ...

 

my favorites are the:

* 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom,

* 50mm f/1.4D AF, and

* 85mm f/1.8D AF

for 'standard' portrait work.

 

i'll use the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

for wide-angle style portraits.

 

Sidebar: for surf photos (i surf myself),

i use the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR,

as i dont feel the 18-200 has enough reach.

 

all of these mount to one of d70s, d80, or

d200 - i dont use DX lenses because i still

shoot film and i assume the next pro body

will be FF (hoping, anyway .. like a D 3 :)

 

regards, michael

[ian_scotland]

Can I gently disagree with you ? The attached was taken with the 18-200mm VR and I've been delighted with it in a wide variety of situations.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Ian, I don't think it is typical to be able to get close enough to photograph wind surfers with a 200mm lens. Is your image above showing the entire image captured or it has been cropped?

 

Moreover, I think we are talking about just surfing, not wind surfing. Without the sail, your overall subject is a lot smaller.

[mjt]

that's my perspective, Shun.

 

obviously, there are many other variables at work, too ... mostly, the proximity to the surfers. on big days, we may paddle out to the 3rd break (almost 1/4 mile out), which makes getting a good shot from shore difficult at best. at one particular break, there is a jetty that juts out at the prime take-off spot, giving photographers a great vantage point, even with a 135mm lens.

 

Ian, i'm not saying the 18-200 wouldnt be a great lens, given that you shoot where the break is close to shore. but for me (it's all about personal choice, right?:), the 80-400 gives me greater range. (i notice you shot that photo at 200mm).

[josep]

But I think you guys aren?t answering his real question.

 

When shooting digital, (focal distance aside) is the 18-200 better quality (sharper) than the 24-120?

 

My understanding is that it is. The difference between the 2 lens is that the 18-200 is DX VR (that means you can only use it in Nikon digital cameras - Nikon?s sensor is slightly smaller than the 35 mm frame and the DX lens are a bit smaller, specially designed for that sensor; resulting into sharper, cleaner shots). Whereas the 24-120 is VR but can work with both film and digital.

 

I don?t own any of these and I am wondering myself whether this is true.