Nikkor 18-70mm vs 18-200mm

[Hobbesyeo]

Another important factor to consider is your budget. Its all very well discussing the pros and cons of each lens but at the end of the day, are you sure you have the budget to carry it thru? :think:

 

[eow]

simple
use the 18-70 if u r low in fund...otherwise get both...later just sell off the one u dun like

 

[gernie]

frankly, if u have the money .. go 18-200 .... kit lens(D70) replaced kit lens(D200)

 

[Luv4nature]

Tricked by the topic, thought it would be a technical discussion about the 2 lenses.

IMO, the original set of questions will lead to more confusions, as the poster sets himself up to lead to no conclusion even if all the best answers were provided to his questions.

So I think the web & forum "search" function has become obseleted already, what we need next are "decision making" functions.

Or may be in absence of such function, the poster should have started a "Poll" and we can all vote and help him to decide which lens to buy, save him from reading through so many replies...

 

[cyberkid]

Tricked by the topic, thought it would be a technical discussion about the 2 lenses.

IMO, the original set of questions will lead to more confusions, as the poster sets himself up to lead to no conclusion even if all the best answers were provided to his questions.

So I think the web & forum "search" function has become obseleted already, what we need next are "decision making" functions.

Or may be in absence of such function, the poster should have started a "Poll" and we can all vote and help him to decide which lens to buy, save him from reading through so many replies...

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
I have made up my mind wht to buy actually..
U all can start the technical discussion about these 2 lenses from now onwards :thumbsup:

 

[DeusExMachina]

Talking about 18-70mm(kit lens) and 18-200mm VR:

1. Which 1 is bigger and heavier? (any size comparison pic?)
2. Which 1 takes a better pic at Wide Angle?
3. Which 1 is faster at focusing and zooming?
4. Which 1 has better resell value (2nd hand value)?
5. Which 1 is a better choice for amateur who own D70s? Is it wise to let go 17-70mm and take 18-200mm to start photography life?
6. Which 1 is more valuable for money?
7. Which 1 provides more versatility for lens upgrade in future?
8. And lastly, which 1 is more professional?

Advice pls sifus, thanks!

Theres no such thing as a professional lens, there are only professional people. A lens is just plastic, metal and glass, be more concerned with your skill at using the equipment, than with the impression people will get of you with that equipment.

:dunno: Young Padawans, always concerned with what others think of them. :dunno:
BTW all the info to the above has already been discussed to death, google for it.

 

[markccm]

Theres no such thing as a professional camera, there are only professional people. A camera is just plastic, metal and glass, be more concerned with your skill at using the equipment, than with the impression people will get of you with that equipment.

:dunno: Young Padawans, always concerned with what others think of them. :dunno:

i do agree that it is the person behind the viewfinder, however there are cameras that have exceptional specs that constitutes to a professional camera.
my 2cents.

 

[coolegg]

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.

This is the best reply I have read so far in any threads about 18-200. :thumbsup:

Salut!

 

[DeusExMachina]

i do agree that it is the person behind the viewfinder, however there are cameras that have exceptional specs that constitutes to a professional camera.
my 2cents.

ALL Cameras are professional, which makes the term "professional camera" a misnomer. The "PROFESSION" or job, of a camera is to take photos, show me a camera on the market which does not take photos and I'll show you an UNPROFESSIONAL camera. The term professional camera was coined by marketing teams as a simple way to denote better engineering, better quality components, to claim that it was "MADE WITH PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS IN MIND".

As such, only people can be professional, cameras and lenses are only better or worse off. Silly generalizations like this cause people like Cyberkid to link "Professional Lenses" to his aspirations to be a better photographer, when he should be really be thinking about shooting more, reading about the works of masters, having more ideas.

 

[coolegg]

he would get neither. 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 only for him.

Agree. The Holy Trinity!

However, if this kid wants to have ONLY 1 lens for easy travelling and portability is his top priority. I would suggest just go for 18-200VR.

The best is, get the Holy Trinity AND get the 18-200VR AND a 12-24 for wide.

 

[markccm]

ALL Cameras are professional, which makes the term "professional camera" a misnomer. The "PROFESSION" or job, of a camera is to take photos, show me a camera on the market which does not take photos and I'll show you an UNPROFESSIONAL camera. The term professional camera was coined by marketing teams as a simple way to denote better engineering, better quality components, to claim that it was "MADE WITH PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS IN MIND".

As such, only people can be professional, cameras and lenses are only better or worse off. Silly generalizations like this cause people like Cyberkid to link "Professional Lenses" to his aspirations to be a better photographer, when he should be really be thinking about shooting more, reading about the works of masters, having more ideas.

i think we have to be a little objective here.
true the photographer is important.
i never deined that. in fact i agree fully.

but the person must have the right tool for the right job.

if all cameras are professional then i really wonder how the photographer can take panning shots of F1 Grand Prix with a P&S camera.
assuming the camera can only go 2fps & a max of ISO400.

 

[TMC]

Agree. The Holy Trinity!

However, if this kid wants to have ONLY 1 lens for easy travelling and portability is his top priority. I would suggest just go for 18-200VR.

The best is, get the Holy Trinity AND get the 18-200VR AND a 12-24 for wide.

I rather he get the 18-70 and learn how to use the camera first before plunging money into a 18-200. Later he end up complaining about how come cannot get good shots then sell everything aways for a PnS.

 

[cyberkid]

FINALLY I HV DECIDED TO BUY 18-70MM ! STOP COMMENTING ME

 

[TMC]

then you can close this thread. look under thread tools above and click on close thread.

Have fun with the 18-70.

 

[coolegg]

FINALLY I HV DECIDED TO BUY 18-70MM ! STOP COMMENTING ME

The big red "shouting" all-caps font is a bit rude. Although this is a virtual cyberworld here and people are free to express, but you need to observe the rules and etiquette as well.

You can always close the thread so that no one will bother to answer you.

Alternatively, you can just choose to ignore what we write.

Anyway, I think this kid has an attitude problem, from being lazy to being rude.

Mind your Ps and Qs please.

 

[cyberkid]

haha, sorry, i m juz too playful..anyway..thanks for u guys' help out there

 

[nightwolf75]

Agree. The Holy Trinity!

However, if this kid wants to have ONLY 1 lens for easy travelling and portability is his top priority. I would suggest just go for 18-200VR.

The best is, get the Holy Trinity AND get the 18-200VR AND a 12-24 for wide.

hmm... is this recommended from the point of sales talk, or practical usage?

much electrons have been spilt here, and elsewhere, abt this... has anyone asked wats wrong with the kit lens?

yeah sure.. its not a 'glamourous' lens - not something u'll want to hold and say to other guy "I'll show u mine if u show me yours". however, putting aside sharpness and other technical comparisons with the fabled 'Trinity', wats seriously 'wrong' with using the kit lens?

for the longest of time, camera makers of all shades packed some form of kit lens usually in the range of 28-80mm. (of course, old fogeys like me will scream even longer in the past, the kit lens was either a 35mm or 50mm... i'll get to dat.) ever wonder why?

i figured its becos in 1 lens, it packs all the useful and practical range for a lens. why? this is how i break it down:

a) 28mm - just nice for the landscape pic and grp shot. not too wide like the 20mm or 24mm, where u'll get too much 'junk' into the pic. and, its not too tele to 'restrict ur pic.

b) 35mm - the 'photojournalist' range, IMO. just wide enuf for the candid, shot-from-hip kind of pic. heck... there must be a damn good reason why the fabled rangefinders always seem to me to be coupled with a 28mm or 35mm.

c) 50mm - the 'natural' view. the 50mm provides a FOV quite similar to the normal human vision.

d) 75-80mm - the mid-tele range. just nice for the occasional portrait or to isolate an object from a reasonable distance without causing too much distortion. heck... there must be also a damn good reason why people call the 80mm-regioned lenses portrait lens, rite?

i guess dats the reason why almost all camera makers pack some form of kit lens in this range for their entry level cameras, where users just start out without any lenses (presumably). in one lens, a beginner is able to experiment with all the useful ranges without having to pack 3 different primes. once they are proficient, then perhaps they might move on to more 'specialised' lenses.

thus, in DSLR today, we are also seeing the digital equivalent of a kit lens - 18-70mm or 18-55mm. dats the whole point of this lens - its a great starter lens for people to try their hand at photography, to gain proficiency in their skills and for them to figure out wat lenses are suitable for them next in 1 useful range. heck... for all we know, some people are perfectly happy with the kit lens and never had to buy another lens. i know a colleague who's perfectly happy using his 18-55mm with his canon 350D (another lens dats pissed upon by all wankers from near and far...).

so, please people... b4 u pass another disparaging remark on the kit lens and tell people to 'MTL, BBB' or 'buy first dun think' the Trinity or watever, just so dat u can tell the other guy ur gun is bigger than his, think. and, for the next fella to ask 'wat lens to buy to replace my kit lens?, think.

it might save u a lot of money...

 

[TMC]

Bravo!

 

[cyberkid]

Nightwolf, can i have ur signature? I think u can be my idol

 

[espn]

However, if this kid wants to have ONLY 1 lens for easy travelling and portability is his top priority. I would suggest just go for 18-200VR.

Bingo, somebody finally understand what I'm driving at!