andrew_fort

I know it's a little late, but I figured that I can give a response to keep this fresh for other that do a Google search.

The 18-70mm is not only built better, but gives better results. Less distortion, more sharpness, less color fringing, and hand shake isn't an issue like it is on the 18-135. If you want the extra range, go for the 18-135. If you want better build and image quality, go for the 18-70mm.

"He seems to rate the old 75-300 f4.5-5.6 as being better than the later (70-300) ones in this class albeit slower to focus, if I read him right http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/75300.htm"

That comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. The 75-300 is much older and operated totally differently. The 70-300 is newer, designed for the entry/budget users, and is designed to be lightweight.

As for the original post, the 70-300mm VR is a great lens that offers VR II, for Normal and Active VR (Normal is for general hand-shake. Active is for more extreme movement, like while panning or shooting from a moving vehicle). I would go for the 70-300 VR for the slightly farther range, the VR, the quiet internal autofocus (with distance scale), the light weight, and the excellent image quality.

Neither the 70-210 nor the 70-300mm are designed for action, but since we can change the ISO on digital cameras and higher ISO settings on cameras like the D40x and the D80 retail their image quality and sharpness, even at ISO 1600. If you keep your ISO boosted to 400 or 800, you will be able to capture action just fine and still keep the image quality.

70-300mm VR + a D80 at ISO 800 will do great for action and the image quality is excellent. The 70-300mm VR gives better results than the 18-200mm in every way, and [should] easily perform better than the old 70-210.

It's not just a matter of numbers but a matter of image quality. The 70-300mm VR is essentially a beefed-up 18-70mm (in the sense of zoom range) and it adds VR II to the mix, which allows for not only normal VR (for correction of regular hand shake) but Active VR, which corrects movement in all directions, even while panning or from more serious movement like from a moving vehicle.

The Sigma 70-300 cannot compare to the Nikon 70-300mm VR, especially in image quality, and it goes not have VR that the Nikon does. Absolutely cannot compare.

If I were you, I would ditch the Sigma (sell it) and but a Nikon 70-300mm VR. It gives great, contrast, saturated results that are better than the 18-200mm VR (which is only a convenience lens, not geared for image quality). The VR works just as well.

Many people are coming to realize this and I hope you do as well: the 18-200 is only designed for convenience and not for image quality. The hype was high before its release and many people found out that the hype did not add up to the results.

Heavy distortion and light falloff with a lack of sharpness is enough to make a lot of people turn away from it. The convenience is nice but the price is terrible for the image results. Going for the excellent 2 lens set 18-70 and 70-300 VR will show dramatic image improvement over the 18-200 VR. Sharpness. Contrast, lack of distortion, very little if any light falloff, and the extra reach makes this set of lenses an excellent choice for the 700 dollar range.

You could also go with the 55-200 VR with the 18-70 and use the money saved to get the famous 50mm f/1.8 for indoor shots and portraits. The downsides to the 55-200 VR is the lesser build quality, less reach, and lack of the Active VR that the 70-300 uses. The image quality is also not as good as the 70-300 VR but the same as the 18-200 VR.

If you have the money to get the 18-200 then I suggest the 18-70 and the 70-300 VR instead. You won't have to wait to get them, the image quality is far superior, and the extra range will be appreciated.

If you don't want to change lenses then go with the 18-200, but if you want to take sharper, less distorted, higher contrast and better saturated pics, then go with the 2 lenses. I used the 18-70 for a year before I had to sell my camera and lens, and I loved it so much that now that I am getting a D80 I am getting the 18-70 again and the 70-300 VR.

Ken Rockwell labels the 18-200 as the end-all lens and usually suggests getting it over all other budget lens options due to the convenience, but he should really rethink his analysis. It is not the best choice overall and besides, it is not entirely necessary to keep one lens on at all times and if you don't want to change lenses often then plan your shots and attach the lens that you need and carry the other in your bag or case.

Just keep in mind that the convenience of the 18-200 VR might be good to have but the poorer image quality outweighes the convenience. When doing photography, good enough doesn't cut it. Go with the option that yields better image quality and ignore that convenience crap.

If you want even better image quality then go for the 70/80-200 f/2.8 which is a pro lens that yields pro results mainly due to its action-stopping capabilities. Some may want to stop action and others don't require it.

The 18-200 is only good for those who want convenience. It has heavy distortion and light falloff. It is not a pro lens even though it is priced as one. Ken Rockwell praises the 18-200 as an end-all lens and constantly suggests getting it instead of other zooms. I find this to be ridiculous. The 70-300 outperforms it in every way except for zoom range. Everyone just needs to ignore the hype. If you want the convenience, go agead. If you want better image quality, go for the 18-70 and 70-300. Same overall price but with better results. Besides, you will appreciate the longer reach."soft at 300"? At 300 it is the same sharpness as 200 on the 18-200 and at 200 it is definitely sharper than the 18-200. While using the same VR capabilities, the 70-300 VR is by far the better choice.

Seriously, Ken Rockwell needs to rethink his analysis. Sure the convenience is nice but the price does not fit the image quality.

I am getting the D80 next week and opted to go for an 18-70mm and a 55-200mm VR. This saves money and gives, in my opinion, better results. The 18-200mm is softer at wide than the 18-70 (I used the 18-70mm on a D50 for a year). At the tele end, from about 70-200mm, both VR lenses perform the same. I haven't sen any noticeable difference in quality.

The hefty price tag on the 18-200mm, in my opinion, is not worth the distortion and softness at wide. The 18-200mm is priced like a pro lens and yet does not perform like one. It is priced as it is due to it's convenience but as for price/performance ratio, you could do better.

If you want the best results you need to pay big bucks and go for a zoom with a constant f/2.8 (vs f/5.6 on the tele end of the 18-200 and 55-200), which allows for sharper results with moving subjects because you can increase the shutter speed without limiting light as much as you would with f/5.6 or f/4.5.

The newer lenses with VR will work just fine on the D80, and so will the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S.

If you want to save money then go with the 18-70mm and 55-200mm VR. If you want to spend more and have the best quality, go with the 17-35 f/2.8 and 70-200mm VR f/2.8. This will give you far better results than the 18-200mm will ever give you.

The D40x does offer the better cropping options and better cropped enlargements. Say you have a flower you want to get a pic of and want to get a cool macro shot of the Pistils or Stamens (the small parts of the flower located where the pollen is). You will get a much closer cropped shot using a 10 MP camera than with a 6 MP. I used Nikon D50 which has 6 MP and I was occasionally frustrated by the limitation of 6 MP due because I wanted to get a closer crop.

10 MP isn't just nice to have when doing macro, it is also nice to use when doing nature shots of, let's say, birds or Squirrels, or any small creature. Using the 55-200mm lens would be nice, but there is in fact a significant difference in a close-cropped subject from 6 MP to 10 MP. That's almost (almost, not quite) twice as close of a crop.

Many people say that it's not about the MP, but I say "why isn't the D200 at 6 MP then? That's a great camera, isn't it?" If megapixels didn't matter then all of Nikon's cameras would be 6 MP. You can't say that it has nothing to do with megapixels but when it comes down to it, you will appreciate 10 MP over 6.

I build and use gaming computers, which use very expensive hardware. If I took 2 video cards and paired them up side-by-side and said "why does this video card have better specification and this one doesn't? They both play Half-Life 2 without lagging at all, so why is this one $550 bucks and this one $250?" In both cases, camera specs and video card specs, the numbers tend to not lie about the performance. A $550 video card with 768 megs of video memory with 128 stream processors will outperform a video card running with 320 megs of video memory and 96 stream processors. The better card will run that same game at higher framerates than the $250 video card, and this can be seen by just looking at the numbers. "Higher numbers are better" doesn't mean that a product with higher numbers instantly qualifies a product to be better, but if the quality associated with those numbers evinces better performance, then why not go with the product that does in fact outperform?

Then there's the "price/performance ratio" kind of thinkers, myself being included, that wonder if the [up to] $250 dollar difference between the 2 cameras justifies the results. Almost twice the megapixels for far better close-crops? The same sensor used in the D80 on the D40x (which gives spectacular image quality that is the same if not better quality than the D50 I sold)? Sure that extra amount of money saved could go towards the 55-200 VR, but wouldn't it make more sense to get the D40x and then get the 55-200 VR too? You don't regret the $250 dollar upgrade in the camera sensor.

Both the D40 and D40x lack the internal focus motor, so you're limited by lens choice with either decision for now, but Nikon will be steadily releasing more entry/budget-level AF-S lenses as time goes on. Why not go for the camera that produces excellent-quality pics with far better close-crop capability and just get the 55-200mm VR later? It comes with the 18-55mm II, and with a significant close-crop, you may not need the 55-200mm VR right away anyway.

Here is one single example picture of the D40 vs the D40x, showing the obvious gain in those extra megapixels. "6 MP Good enough"?

I have been looking at the D40 and D40x for the past couple of weeks and have found from a few sources that the D40x is better at high ISO noise reduction, but image quality in general is the same between the 2. The D40x uses the D80 sensor, which takes amazing pics. The D40 takes pics that are just about as good, but you don't have the 10 MP sensor which allows you to crop in quite a bit closer. The difference between 6 and 10 MP is about 1.85x more picture area, allowing for better cropping. If you do macro, this comes in handy.

Another difference that we all know by now is the flash sync difference. 1/500 for the D40 and 1/250 for the D40x, because the D40x uses an all mechanical shutter. This is quite a difference, but only when you're using the flash, and 1/250 is still pretty quick. You may not need 1/500. I never did while using my D50. Besides, in a low-light situation, you're using a higher ISO setting which doesn't require a 1/500 shutter speed. I'm sure there are certain situations that would actually require a 1/500 shudder with the flash, most likely involving macro or an action shot.

Now, looking at the minimum ISO settings, the D40 being ISO 200 and the D40x being ISO 100, you will likely not see a difference in quality. In fact, if you compare an image from a shot taken from the D40x at ISO 200 (one step up from ISO 100) and a D70 pic taken at ISO 200, the D40x wins in quality.

Now, you could save money by getting a D40 and using that to get the 55-200mm VR, but in reality, it's not a fantastic lens and you would want to get a better lens anyway. Why not spend the extra to get the 10 MP of the D40x, use the 18-55mm II lens that it comes with and later on get the 18-200mm VR alone, or the 18-70mm (a fantastic lens), and a used 70-200mm f2.8 (a great lens for action and nature). Remember, VR does NOT stop action like an f2.8 lens can. It only stabilizes it to avoid blur. Using a proper tripod, this shouldn't happen anyway. VR is for the new lazy generation that doesn't want to carry a 30lb tripod. I would go for a 70-200mm f2.8 any day over an 18-200mm VR.