cyberkid said:My point of asking a series of questions here is just wanna know that whether THE LENS is a better lens to own than a 18-70mm, in other words which 1 between them has the better performance/price ratio? Is it worth while to dig a few more hundred dollars to go for it...
obviously, u have not done any homework on these 2 lenses... come to think of it, u dun have any nikon DSLR yet, rite?
wat is better? in wat sense? since u want to measure 'better' as price/performace ratio, the 18-70 beats 18-200 hands down. why? $300 (2nd-hand) vs $1200 (new and not readily available) is a very good reason. u want to talk abt sharpness? IMO, 18-70 will beat 18-200 in terms of sharpness. why? ultra-zooms, by and large, generally produce softer images at the extreme end.
AF-S 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5G DX vs AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED? same class? hardly... again, wat do u mean by quality? sharpness? colour reproduction? contrast? etc.. etc..
the 18-70, generally by most people, is considered to be the best value for money kit lens ard. the quality of this lens is no slouch (of course, pls dun compare with the pro-grade, thousands of dollars, the famed Trinity lenses). if u think the lens is crap, i suggest u go to www.photoi.com.sg and have a look at last year's Photo of the Year winners. 2 of them were shot using the 18-70.
its also 1-stop faster than the 18-200 on the tele end. ie - u can shoot in slightly lower light condition with the 18-70 at a reasonably higher shutter speed (with the same ISO) with minimal or no hand-shakes, compared to the 18-200. if i sound like i'm talking in greek here to u... then, pls do urself a favour and go pick up a simple photography guidebook. might i suggest "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.
ok... i can see some people raising their hands in the background - but, 18-200 got VRII mah! it means one can shoot at 2-3 stops lower then f5.6. ie. suppose if at ISO 200, with VRII u might be able to shoot at 1/30 or lower at f5.6 in low light conditions without hand-shakes blurring ur pics. rite?
yeah... true. while VR lessens the likelihood of blur pics due to handshakes, it doesn't freeze action. suppose u want to freeze action at nite. by rite, one way to do it is to use a high-ISO, high shutter speed. BUT, becos of the f5.6, there's a limit to how high a shutter speed can go b4 under-expose kicks in. again, if i sound like i'm talking greek to u, go see above.
u obviously din read espn's post carefully abt buying the "1 lens rules them all'...
u want to shoot all the above ALL THE TIME, MOST OF THE TIME, or SOME OF THE TIME? u just listed 4 distinct activities which might be able to cover by either the 18-70 or 18-200. however, since 2 of the activities require dim/low-light condition, are u going to get a flash? if not, u will soon come complaining abt 'how come my pics are so dark?', or 'how come my subjects all blur?' questions. these 4 activities, IMO, requires/recommends different types of lenses. again, wat to buy depends on whether are u going to use it for wat events MOST OF THE TIME.
so, pls. go and read up more from books and from online reviews abt the lenses. heck... methinks u need to read up abt photography first (if u are starting from scratch). if u haven't buy ur d70s yet, why not just buy the kit set and start shooting with the 18-70 b4 deciding to plunge serious moolah for the 18-200?
postscript - in case anyone thinks i'm dissing the 18-200 as a piece of crap lens... far from it. as a general purpose/travel 1-lens-rules-them-all kind of lens, this is good value for money. by the fact that it has VR, IF and ED means dat it beats all competition from 3rd-party (eg sigma/tamron's 18-200mm). however, it also means one has to pay top-dollar for these features ($1200 vs $400+-500+ for 3rd party). the extra 130mm reach of the long end makes this more attractive as a travel lens compared to the 18-70. again, depends on wat one wants to use it for most of the time.
