VR 18-200 vs 18-50II and VR 50-200

Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
393
Location
4 meter minus sea level.
Hi,
after my decision that i probably want to buy a nikkon D40 to stay on budget for my first dsrl i need to find out the best lens or combination to buy with it.
off course the 18-200 VR came into my mind,
but it cost a lot...
Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 G €766.00

then you also get the D40 with a standard 18-50II lens kit
so i also could buy the 50-200 VR to cover the same line up...
Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200mm F/4-5.6 G IF-ED €319.00

but then i need to cary an extra lens with me, and change them sometimes, can anny body tell me from experience if you change them a lot when you are out on a trip or holiday?
and is ther somebody who cantell me if you are working with the 18-200 VR if you have trouble with the barrel distortion at 18mm? if you look in the review its pretty high..
( http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm )

kind regards
Aernout
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
90
Location
Toronto, Canada
the distortion was easy enough to correct in pp

i would say that an 18-200VR is a great travel lens.. you can add a 12-24 as well if you need more wideness and still have a light bag
 
G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
I have no experience with the 18-200mm, but I just got a 55-200mm VR and it seems to do the trick. See here and here

You can buy the 55-200mm VR for $249, and still have some money to buy some fast lenses like a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8 for the same price as the 18-200mm VR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
393
Location
4 meter minus sea level.
thanks for your information, i also noticed that all zoom lenses have barrel distortion at the 18mm range.

Gr8Tr1x, in one of your links they where talking about that the 50-200 is to slow for sports, what exactly do they mean with that, is the focus time to short to get a sharp picture before the action is gone?

Namaste
Aernout
 
G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
thanks for your information, i also noticed that all zoom lenses have barrel distortion at the 18mm range.

Gr8Tr1x, in one of your links they where talking about that the 50-200 is to slow for sports, what exactly do they mean with that, is the focus time to short to get a sharp picture before the action is gone?

Namaste
Aernout
I haven't done scientific focus testing, but the focusing seems slower than my 70-300mm VR. Generally, you would want a fast aperture lens for sports, to achieve a high shutter speed without sacrificing the ISO for it.

I suppose it could be used to shoot sports, outdoors, on a bright sunny day, but in all honesty, I wouldn't want someone to get the idea that this is a replacement for something like the 70-200mm 2.8 VR.
 
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
393
Location
4 meter minus sea level.
i am not realy sure what you mean now, but you think that the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G ED is a faster focusing lens then the Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200mm F/4-5.6 G IF-ED (man lots of letter they use these days) money difference is overseeing because you also get extra zoom with it, but i am not sure if i would like the extra weight, i am aiming on a D40 and i want an allround camera to have fun with. (D80 is to exspensife).
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
415
Location
Wisconsin
I decided to get the 55-200 VR based on test shots I took at the local camera store. For $250 (funny how this amount is considere cheap in this forum) it took really nice pictures and i have have a discerning eye. The extra weight of the 70-300 was actually a turnoff and I tend to shoot towards the tele end so no need for the 18-200 (that's what I tell myself)
 
G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
i am not realy sure what you mean now, but you think that the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G ED is a faster focusing lens then the Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200mm F/4-5.6 G IF-ED (man lots of letter they use these days) money difference is overseeing because you also get extra zoom with it, but i am not sure if i would like the extra weight, i am aiming on a D40 and i want an allround camera to have fun with. (D80 is to exspensife).
Having both, I believe that there are different AFS motors in each of these lenses. The 70-300mm VR focus is much snappier.
 
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
393
Location
4 meter minus sea level.
Having both, I believe that there are different AFS motors in each of these lenses. The 70-300mm VR focus is much snappier.
To a newbie who is wondering witch lens he should purchase witch one should you recommand?

To danmab, its cheap compared to where i live, your 250$ lens will cost here in the netherlands 300 euro at the cheapest webshop. in other shops it wil be around the 350 euro, and that while the euro is more worth then the dollar, if i new a shop in newyork with your prices i could fly to it buy my camera and have a short vacation all along with it for the same price....
 
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