Need help: Nikon 18-200 VR or 80-200 2.8/f ?

Oakley

I already have:
Nikon D50
50mm 1.8
18-70 Kit Lens

What I shoot:
Everything - Landscapes, Macro (but usually have to use my Canon A95 P&S for that, irronically enough), Portraits, Weddings, Family, Animals....

Any advice from 18-200 or 80-200 users out there??

Cheers,

Ryan

BPerron

Oakley wrote:

I already have:
Nikon D50
50mm 1.8
18-70 Kit Lens

What I shoot:
Everything - Landscapes, Macro (but usually have to use my Canon A95 P&S for that, irronically enough), Portraits, Weddings, Family, Animals....

Any advice from 18-200 or 80-200 users out there??

Cheers,

Ryan

For what you shoot, this lens will be a great addition if not one of the best for overall uses. I love mine, it was worth the cash for a lens that is from 18-200mm. I told a buddy of mine that bought the d40x kit with two lenses, to buy just the body and then get this lens and he thought I was crazy, well he is kicking himself, cause he hates switching between lenses...This lens is also very well built and super sharp...I highly recommend it! If you have any questions let me know...

chunin

Buy the 80-200/2.8D AF. It is what you need to fill in the gap and is way sharper. The 18-200 IS is convenient but can't touch the 80-200 in sharpness. Besides someone that does not like to change lenses probably does not like photography either unless what he uses is a fixed lens.

Oakley wrote:

I already have:
Nikon D50
50mm 1.8
18-70 Kit Lens

What I shoot:
Everything - Landscapes, Macro (but usually have to use my Canon A95 P&S for that, irronically enough), Portraits, Weddings, Family, Animals....

Any advice from 18-200 or 80-200 users out there??

Cheers,

Ryan

BPerron

chunin wrote:

Buy the 80-200/2.8D AF. It is what you need to fill in the gap and is way sharper. The 18-200 IS is convenient but can't touch the 80-200 in sharpness. Besides someone that does not like to change lenses probably does not like photography either unless what he uses is a fixed lens.

This is the most ignorant statement I have heard in a long time, that is like saying "why have AF, if someone wants to focus automatically, they must not like photography"...I love to take photos, but why bother switching lenses for shooting most things? The reason why most photographers (wedding and sports, etc.) carry two or three cameras around with different lenses so they did not have to switch between lenses and miss the shot, so why not cut out this step and have two cameras (one with the 18-200mm and as super wide angle lens)? That's right they do not like to take pictures...

and both lenses are comparable to each other in sharpness the 80-200mm, is sharper but not by leaps and bounds like you make it seem. The new 70-200mm lens is just as sharp as the old 80-200mm and is cheaper...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm , one of the reasons I went with the 18-200mm, and i am very happy with the advise he gives and I have seen the difference when my buddy shoots with his two lenses to make up with what I have with my lens and how much more I am able to get then he does...

and if I was going to get a lens that is upwards of 50mm, I would get the 70mm-300mm, might as well get some longer range with the lens if you are going to scarfice the bottom end of length.

chunin

So you read Ken Rockwell, I see where all these is coming from. The 80-200/2.8 is way sharper than the 18-200mm. The 18-200 is an amazing lens for the range that it covers but can not be compared to a good regular zoom. Since he already have the 18-70 which is sharper than the 18-200, the 80-200/2.8 is a good alternative to fill the gap. The 80-200/2.8 is not more expensive than the 70-200VR unless you want to look for the 80-200/2.8 AF-S instead of the regular 80-200/2.8 AF-D. The AF-D sells new for around $800 and can be had used in mint condition for around $550. So if he wants a nice sharp lens to complement what he have it would be the 80-200. If he want only one lens to use the 18-200VR is a nice choice but I personally would go for a 35/2 or a 50/1.4. It is not like saying why people have AF instead of manual focus it would be like saying why have manual crank AF instead of MF.

BPerron wrote:

This is the most ignorant statement I have heard in a long time, that is like saying "why have AF, if someone wants to focus automatically, they must not like photography"...I love to take photos, but why bother switching lenses for shooting most things? The reason why most photographers (wedding and sports, etc.) carry two or three cameras around with different lenses so they did not have to switch between lenses and miss the shot, so why not cut out this step and have two cameras (one with the 18-200mm and as super wide angle lens)? That's right they do not like to take pictures...

and both lenses are comparable to each other in sharpness the 80-200mm, is sharper but not by leaps and bounds like you make it seem. The new 70-200mm lens is just as sharp as the old 80-200mm and is cheaper...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm , one of the reasons I went with the 18-200mm, and i am very happy with the advise he gives and I have seen the difference when my buddy shoots with his two lenses to make up with what I have with my lens and how much more I am able to get then he does...

and if I was going to get a lens that is upwards of 50mm, I would get the 70mm-300mm, might as well get some longer range with the lens if you are going to scarfice the bottom end of length.

greenpea

For me personally, I went with the 18-200 (and sold my 18-70 kit lens) and I am very happy with it, it's probably my most used lens. In fact before there was a Nikon 18-200 VR, I owned the Tamron 18-200 (sold that too when I got my Nikon 18-200 VR).

Not being able to open up to 2.8 is frustrating sometimes but the fact that I can quickly grab my camera with the 18-200 on it and not have to wonder what other lens to bring makes up for the lack of being able to open up to 2.8.

I still hope to get the 70-200 some day, but for now the 18-200 and several fast primes meet all my needs.

Harryb

From Photozone's reviews of the two lenses in question

80-200 2.8
"Despite its age the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is a great lens both mechanically as well as optically (assuming you can get a good sample). The resolution is on a very high level throughout the zoom range and neither distortions nor vignetting are big issues (on an APS-C DSLR). CAs can be visible at times but the problem isn't overly pronounced. It is a joy to use this lens and the relatively large aperture provides some creative potential in the convenient package of a zoom. The comparatively low price tag is also a good argument to have a deeper look into this interesting option ... unless, of course, you can afford the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR.
Optical Quality:Mechanical Quality:Price/Performance:

18-200
"Regarding some glowing reviews available on the web the expectation were rather high. Unfortunately the (tested sample of the) Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX wasn't able to convince completely. Weak points are rather hefty distortions and high vignetting (@ f/3.5) at 18mm. Apart from a few weak spots the resolution figures are quite good though and it is possible to get very decent images from this lens under field conditions. The VR can surely help to save the day in situations where similar zooms must fail utterly The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price class and probably the biggest disappointment. All in all the Nikkor is a highly interesting lens but not without flaws (hardly surprising for a 11x zoom).
Optical Quality:Mechanical Quality:Price/Performance:
"

BPerron

Harryb wrote:

From Photozone's reviews of the two lenses in question

80-200 2.8
"Despite its age the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is a great lens both mechanically as well as optically (assuming you can get a good sample). The resolution is on a very high level throughout the zoom range and neither distortions nor vignetting are big issues (on an APS-C DSLR). CAs can be visible at times but the problem isn't overly pronounced. It is a joy to use this lens and the relatively large aperture provides some creative potential in the convenient package of a zoom. The comparatively low price tag is also a good argument to have a deeper look into this interesting option ... unless, of course, you can afford the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR.
Optical Quality:Mechanical Quality:Price/Performance:

18-200
"Regarding some glowing reviews available on the web the expectation were rather high. Unfortunately the (tested sample of the) Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX wasn't able to convince completely. Weak points are rather hefty distortions and high vignetting (@ f/3.5) at 18mm. Apart from a few weak spots the resolution figures are quite good though and it is possible to get very decent images from this lens under field conditions. The VR can surely help to save the day in situations where similar zooms must fail utterly The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price class and probably the biggest disappointment. All in all the Nikkor is a highly interesting lens but not without flaws (hardly surprising for a 11x zoom).
Optical Quality:Mechanical Quality:Price/Performance:
"

That is a great link...I love my lens and not having to change lenses all the time to get two different shots is so nice. This does not mean I am lazy and do not like photography, just makes life so much better and the pics are good that come from the lens are great...maybe not magazine or book worthy, but good enough for alot of shots. If we are talking book or magazine worthy, we need a much bigger budget and camera should be discussed as well.

ShepsMom

I like, not love my 18-200. I'm very disappointed in low light preformance, for that alone, i'd rather have 2.8 vs 3.5-5.6

18-200 has a sweet spot at about 100mm, anything longer is quiet poor.
I love the 18mm part but not 200 .

Regardless, it's a great everyday, every possible use lens. You can do landscapes, portraits, group shots, etc. I was thinking of selling mine and getting something faster.

BPerron

ShepsMom wrote:

I was thinking of selling mine and getting something faster.

and get what with the same range that is faster?

Red J

If it were me, I would sell off the 18-70 and buy the 18-200 and put the surplus funds toward the 80-200 at a future date.

BPerron

Red J wrote:

If it were me, I would sell off the 18-70 and buy the 18-200 and put the surplus funds toward the 80-200 at a future date.

Thats a good call...

jonh68

I love my 18-200 lens. If I had to choose one lens, it would be it. The ONE thing these comparison test don't show is what it can do the other one cant. I kunker with getting the 18-200 and then the 80-200 2.8.

Compare a 70-200 and the 18-200 at the 18 mm range. Can't

Compare 17-55 mm 2.8 and 18-200 at 100 mm range. Can't

If you compare the 18-200 to the best out there, it's going to fail. The total sum of the worth of this lens can't be summed up by comparison charts. I like it because I can walk around and get action shots of wildlife, take a macro of a wildflower, and wide angle shot of a sunset without having to change lenses or carry a bag. If slow speed is a problem in low light, get a sb-400 and bounce the light of the ceiling or wall.

The lens is sharp. Not as sharp as pro grade, but sharper than kit lenses. DXO cleans up any distortions are other problems. The main problem with sharpness is it doesn't have great bokeh and background images are sharp as well. I just don't buy the argument it's way out of the league of pro lenses in regards to sharpness.

Looks sharp to me at ISO 800, 1/60 and sb400 bounced off the couch..

Oakley

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. It really helped. in the end I decided to purchase the 18-200. It makes the most sense for me right now. And I will use the sale of my 18-70 for the future purchase of the 80-200.

I'll let you know how I like my lens when I get it in a few days.

Cheers,

Ryan