Having Nikon 18-200. Should I get 70-300 VR?

[justin_ngo]

Hi,

 

I'm having pretty good copy of Nikon 18-200. Is it worth to spend around $500 for the 70-300 VR for better image

quality than the 18-200 , comparing in the same focal range?( regarding sharpness, DOF, color )

I prefer getting close-up flowers, animals and taking my son portraits. ( I also have 50mm 1.8 and SB-600)

 

Can I expect better portrait images than the 18-200 does when I use 70-300 VR with SB-600? I know 70-200 and

80-200 out there are best, but I can not afford and too heavy to carry around. )

 

Thanks a lot !

[Matt Laur]

Hmmm. I'd seriously consider an 85/1.8, or maybe even 105 Micro. The 70-300 is for brightly lit casual sports-shooting, that sort of thing. It's not going to be a whole lot better from 70-200 than the 18-200 is in that range, not if you want to use it wide open.

 

On the other hand, the 85/1.8 will be very, very sharp for creatures and faces and flowers... but you can only get just so close. The 60mm/2.8 Micro might make for an interesting choice, as well.

[victorwei]

The only reasons for you to get the 70-300 VR would be to shoot action or wildlife (birds). I don't think this lens will give you better portraits than the 18-200 VR you already have. For portraits, you'd be better off by going with a prime lens like the one suggested by Matt - 85/1.8.

[steve_dawson1]

It depends on why you are unhappy with the 18-200. The 70-300 VR is a remarkable lens for its price - less distortion than the 18-200 and sharper, and, of course you get VR. Against that is the the fact that it may not be the best lens for close ups of flowers, and some or all of its focal length range (with a DX sensor) is rather long for portraits.

[elliot1]

<<I prefer getting close-up flowers, animals and taking my son portraits>>

 

Nikon's 105mm macro lens would probably be your best choice for this type of photography.

 

<<Can I expect better portrait images than the 18-200 does when I use 70-300 VR>>

 

No, unless there is a problem with your 18-200mm lens. If you are not getting sharp images, I suggest you send your lens to Nikon for an inspection. If you bought it new, it should still be covered under their 5 year warranty. I have not used the VR version of the 70-300 lens. I did have the non-VR version and like many others, found that the images were a little soft between 200mm-300mm. In any case, there is little difference in zoom between 200mm and 300mm.

 

<<I know 70-200 and 80-200 out there are best...>>

 

In good lighting or with flash, there is not much of a difference, if any, in IQ.

[carl_becker2]

I think Matt nailed it. Close ups and portrait can be done with the 60. If you want to shoot wildlife I would recommend looking at a Nikkor 300mm f4, either used or the new AF-S at a minimum. If you needed more then add a 1.4 TC.

[dan_brown4]

I don't htink the 70-300 will get you much over the 18-200 for the purpose you state. I think you need more speed. Take a

look at the Tokina 50-135/2.8 or the Sigma 50-150/2.8, both of which have a useful portrait range. Of course, the pimes Matt

mentioned are great. So would the Nikon 70-200/2.8, although it is quite expensive.

[joseph_smith3]

If you are not using a tripod, consider getting one and using it as it will improve the sharpness of your images with any lens. Joe Smith

[Two23]

I agree with above. A tripod would help the flower photo sharpness. I don't see the 70-300mm doing anything better that you want to do.

 

 

Kent in SD

[justin_ngo]

Thank you all. All of your advices make sense ! I think I should save more to go with the 105 VR or Sigma 50-150 II or....:-)

I read a post in this forum about Tokina 50-135. it seems a good lens. Well, so many fast zooms !

 

Thanks