raffal Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Does make sens to purchase 18-200mm VR, if i already have 18-55mm, 55-200mm and 70-300mm VR telefoto.I am looking for lens that i would not have to change all the time...is it 18-55mm enough?Rafal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 how about sell the 18-55mm and 55-200mm and team up the 70-300mm VR with a 18-70mm !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffal Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 How about performance of this lens?(18-70mm?)vs 18-200mm. IS it "enough" zoom for everyday usage? Raf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 No, I suggest the 35/2D-AF as a walk-about lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_aysh Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 if the 18-55 is enough, and you got alot of extra cash..go for 17-55;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmm Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I'm with Juanjo. 18-70 is meant to be a good lens for the price (which, I migght add, is far less than the price of an 18-200). And Dan, love that lens, but as a suggestion to this OP's question and implied preferences, certainly left field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffal Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 so far i lean more towards Nikon 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S Nikkor ...Any input appreciated.I think this is great lens for the money, that can stay on a camera most of the time, giving an opprtunity to take portraits and some tele ability for travel photography.Although i heard there are some technical issues with the lens, like AF...? Raf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I've not used the 18-135mm, but the Nikon 18-70mm DX zoom is a real gem. It is lightweight, inexpensive, and outperforms the 18-200mm VR in sharpness and distortion. I had the 18-200mm VR for a short time, I tested it, and wasn't impressed so I sold it. To me it is a step down in quality compared to the 18-70mm. You're taking a hit on quality to get VR and 71-200mm zoom range. Instead, I bought the excellent Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom and love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This was yet another thread lost during the rollback. As I replied earlier, if convenience is important to you, the 18-200mm AF-S VR is a good choice. It is a slow f5.6 on the long end, it is not optically great, and IMO it is still expensive, but it is hard to beat its convenience. Among the consumer and prosumer lenses you have, I would dump the 55-200. You have too many lenses to give you the 70-200mm range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kens Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 The 18-70 paired with the 70-300 VR make a good compact set. Plus both use the same 67mm polarizer filter. For full frame the 24-85 with the 70-300 VR do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffal Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 So, what are there pros and cons for 18-135mm vs 18-70mm ??? I know many people will have different opinions, id like to hear...thanks,Raf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightypir Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I had the 18-135 on my D200 but had lots of problems with the cheap build and the distortion. On several occasions it would give me a F0 error until I twisted it on and off, and made me miss several good shots. Final straw came when the AF stopped working and had to go back to the shop for repair. I "upgraded" to the older 18-70 and am much happier with the solid build, better sealing and lower distortion CA etc. Stick with the 18-70 and add a 70-300 and you will be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I went with the older AF 24-85mm f2.8-4 D Macro (1:2) for the aperture and macro, with reasonable wide and longish sides, $550 from Adorama. I also got the AF-S 70-300 VR, then the Tokina 12-24mm f4 Pro DX to round it all out. Here are samples with the 24-85: http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_cooper3 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Another lens to take a look at is the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. I have one and it's a nice lens and has a pretty decent Macro feature as well. I have a 17-55 some primes and a 300mm f/4 and this lens won't weigh you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_burke3 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I have the 18-70, 55-200 VR and the 35mm f2 D, all for use on a D80. The 18-70 is a fine lens for my use; it's not that fast but then I don't normally need f2.8. I sometimes wish it was a bit longer and I have thought about the 18-135 or the 18-200, but I don't like the build quality on the first (nor the fact that it doesn't have VR) and I don't like the price of the 18-200 (especially here in the UK). However I do a lot of photography on foreign holidays, and the problem with them is that when flying within Europe I'm limited to 20 kgs luggage, so I have been tempted by the 18-200 as a 'single lens' solution. But s far I've resisted temptation. The 35mm isn't a direct replacement for the 18-70 - it is too different a lens for that - but it is one I use quite a lot when I am going to shoot a specific thing. My Two Trees pictures (see my Photo.net gallery for examples) were done with the 35mm over a period of 10 months (so far). Finally, I like the 55-200, especially now it's got VR! I don't shoot often at these focal lengths, and for me this lens just works better (price, weight, size) than the alternatives. I did have a 70-200 'trombone' lens when I first got my D70, but I didn't like it and I felt the camera was unbalanced with it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I dislike "telescopic lenses" that gets too long, like the 18-200. That`s me, perhaps you don`t mind about it. Also, high power zooms usually loose a bit on image sharpness and maximum aperture. If you also don`t mind about it (that`s reasonable if you don`t get big sized prints) I would trade your lenses for the 18-200. You will gain on weight, size and convenience. In my experience, a 18-55 is perfect; I have removed my 17-55 from my cameras almost twice times (I have more than 20 Nikkors), one time for testing and another to use a 105 to shot some portraits. Sometimes I missed something like a 55-200, but I`m so lazy to change the lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Yes if you don't like to change lenses and plan to sell the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 If you're doing a lot of lens changing, then the 18-135 is NOT a good choice. How much do you think that plastic lens mount will really hold up? The 18-200 is a great "walk around" and vacation lens. If you don't think that you'll go beyond 70mm, the 18-70 handles much better and is built very well... and is probably the same quality (for end results). How big do you print? How do you use your photos? If you don't print beyond 8x10 or the occasional 11x14, will you really see a difference between 18-55, 18-70, 17-55 and 18-200? Probably not, especially if you can do some careful and judicious post-processing on your images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 It makes sense if you do not want to change lenses at all. I purchased a DSLR so that I could change lenses. I use and like the 18-70mm and have paired it with an older 70-210mm f5.6 zoom when I want convenience. I also used primes from 20mm to 400mm. I sacrifice convenience for quality and speed. Only you know the range needed for your style of photography. If required I could get along with the 18-70mm zoom or a couple of primes in that range and a 180mm f2.8. Your experience will be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I am with Mike Kohan the 24-85mm is a good walk around lens. Add a 180mm in the bag you got good coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich B NYC Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 The first lens that I ever mounted on my D80 was a borrowed 18-200 and, to say the least, I was unimpressed. While convenient, I feel that it is overpriced for what you actually get. On the other hand, the 18-70, which is what I decided to buy, has proven itself to by a fine performer. There's a bit of distortion at 18mm, but nothing that keeps me from using it for landscapes, which is what I generally shoot. I wouldn't use it for architectural photography even though I think that it's better than the 18-200 in that regard. To go along with the 18-70, I bought a 55-200VR and couldn't be happier with it. It seems to be built by Fisher Price, but I haven't managed to wear it out yet. It's certainly not a speed lens, but for outdoor use it meets my needs and the VR makes a big difference when you're forced to shoot at f5.6 or smaller. This pair makes a nice kit for traveling as it's light (especially the 55-200) and very good optically. When ultimate performance or speed is called for, I just use my primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullmetalphotograper Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 My walk around lens is the 12-24mm f/4. I use it daily. for everything. I guess it comes down to what you are shooting and the lighting conditions. I never have been a fan of extreme focal range zooms like the 18-200mm. Past experience says to me that they fall short at both extreme ends of their focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_makin Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I used to own the 18-70 (Great lens); I own the 18-200, it came with the D200 I bought a year ago. I really dont like the 18-200, the lens creep just annoys the hell out of me, the build quality is poor (actually, its crap) and the images (IMHO) are soft over 80mm. I also own a 17-55 f2.8 (wow, what a lens) and a newly aquired 80-200 f2.8, so the 18-200 is history, I just need to get around to putting it onto that auction site......... if your on a budget, the 18-70 is a great lens, leaves the 18-200 for dead. If you can get the cash together, look at the 17-55 f2.8 but be warned, once you have used it, you will be hooked on very expensive Nikon glass........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marypar4 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I have 18-55, 55-200novr, 18-70, 70-300, My favorite lenses are 18-70 and the 70-300vr...I got the other two in a kit..so I never use them anymore...and they will go on ebay. The 18-70 is very sharp and fun to use..I like the extra distance..as opposed to 18-55. The 70-300 is a great lens in sunshine..it hunts in cloudy conditions but that is par for the course..its is also very sharp for the price..under $500 now.Its a big heavy lens so perhaps if you do not need the extra distance go with the 55-200 VR and the 18-55 as a walk around. The 18-135 was too shaky over 80mm so I didn't bother getting it..thought I might get lots of blurry pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_ferrante Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I did exactly what many have suggested. I got the 70-300VR and the 18-70 and am very happy with the two. I'm going to get rid of several other overlapping lenses. And the 2 together are cheeper than the 18-200VR alone and have greater range. I also, have the Sigma 105 macro. I can carry the 3 in a small pack and pretty much cover any outdoor situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now