18-200VR: Better than 18-70mm kit lens?

Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
360
Location
Tokyo
I know that the 18-200 has VR, and obviously a longer focal lenght. But those aside, would you say that the 18-200 produces better images than the 18-70?

Sorry for the 'gray' question, but I don't know whether it's worth replacing my 18-70 with something the same. Or should I save for a 70-200 (much more expensive)?
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
904
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I'd say go for the 70-200 if you don't mind changing lenses and you need fast shutter speed for action. In general, I'd always recommend the 70-200 over the 18-200 if you're ok with changing lenses. It's optically superior to the 18-200VR, and I'd actually come pretty close to saying that your 18-70 is better in the 18-70 range over the 18-200VR (hope I don't get raked over the coals for saying that!).
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
20,922
Location
SW Virginia
I made a fairly detailed comparison of these two lenses (18-70 and 18-200) when I first got my 18-200VR. I found that within their common range, the performance of the two was virtually identical. The 18-200 has maybe a tosh more geometric distortion at the wide end.

I don't have time right now to search for the thread I posted on this comparison.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
Hey you goofball, I think I'd tend to agree 100%. 18-200 via the 2 lens combo will get you superior results a large percentage of time. Some seem to really milk the 18-200 for all it's worth. I'm not sure I'd say I've been that lucky with it. But I still intend to hang onto it a while longer for my D200 combo whenever I get it back from my daughter.

But generally, to sound perhaps somewhat profound, "if you want superior results, start with superior glass." That doesn't give you an "eye", nor does it insure that you use your equipment to the best potential. But it's a good general rule of thumb.

The 70-200 has more elements likely, it's built like a tank, it doesn't have to cover as "much range", so it can focus (ha) better on the 70-200 range.

70-300 may be a attractive option that would put you into comparible quality with 18-70 and 18-200, and added to your 18-70 saves you money if bang for buck is most important.
 
B

BillRogers

Guest
Both lenses have been tested at www.slrgear.com. From a technical standpoint, their test charts will answer your question. From a practical standpoint, my 18-200VR takes excellent photos and I am quite pleased with it for the money I paid.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,239
Location
Utica, NY, USA
I know that the 18-200 has VR, and obviously a longer focal lenght. But those aside, would you say that the 18-200 produces better images than the 18-70?

Sorry for the 'gray' question, but I don't know whether it's worth replacing my 18-70 with something the same. Or should I save for a 70-200 (much more expensive)?
You may wish to clarify the intended use. While the 70-200VR is a pro lens with the image quality that comes with the territory, the other two lenses are quite good in their own right. So, look at what focal length territory you usually hang out and make you purchase accordingly. Obviously the resolving power of the 70-200 is better than the other two, but you may not need that. The 70-200 is a lot heavier than the other two lenses, which may also be a consideration.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
627
Location
so cal
For me the 18-200 has been a stellar walk around lens. I dont think I'll be selling it any time soon. If thats what your looking for get it.

That said. I purchased the 70-200 lens a week ago, It has not come off my camera. It won't be comming off any time soon. This glass rocks in my opinion. But it is not a small walk around lens. (like the 18-70 and 18-200)


I know that the 18-200 has VR, and obviously a longer focal lenght. But those aside, would you say that the 18-200 produces better images than the 18-70?

Sorry for the 'gray' question, but I don't know whether it's worth replacing my 18-70 with something the same. Or should I save for a 70-200 (much more expensive)?
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
63
Location
Loudon, TN
The 18-200 is on my camera 95% of the time, I only take it off when I want more reach with the 80-400. The 18-200 was announced while I was on a 64 day cruise of the Pacific in Oct-Dec 2005. I vowed to get one when I returned to the states. I was very fortunate to get one on ebay in Jan 2006 at the $699 msrp. This is one great walk around lens.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,374
I know that the 18-200 has VR, and obviously a longer focal lenght. But those aside, would you say that the 18-200 produces better images than the 18-70?

Sorry for the 'gray' question, but I don't know whether it's worth replacing my 18-70 with something the same. Or should I save for a 70-200 (much more expensive)?
i have all 3
the 18-70 is slightly better than the 18-200 in IQ but it's not a good vacation lens
the 18-200 is the perfect vacation lens w/ 200mm, AFS and VR

The 70-200 is a jewel but forget vacation

Keep the 18-70 and get the 70-200
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom