What lens to compliment Nikon 18-200mm VR?

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
5,482
Location
NY
180 2.8 is a very sweet lens. Great image quality in a smallish package.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
540
Location
Pacific NW
What is your budget and goals? The 80-400 VR would be a nice match (I hope to get one eventually), but for now the 70-300 VR seems to compliment it nicely. A bit more reach and a bit better image quality too.

For me I've also been thinking the 105 VR might be a good choice. It's not cheap, but now that the bugs are coming out again I've started trying for some macro shots and that seems like just the ticket.
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
6,387
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
It depends...

The previous poster suggested the 70-300. A close friend, whose photo skills I would love to emulate, has a 12-24, 18-200, and 70-300. He is not a birder/wildlife enthusiast so he has no need of nosebleed focal lengths. He seems to be a happy photog. It all comes down to what kind of extension to your current capabilities are you looking to get. In other words, what do you want to do, photographically, that you cannot do now? The answer to that question will narrow the choices but will not necessarily make the choice easy.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
424
Location
Villanova, PA
I have the 70-300mm VR and think that would complement the 18-200mm VR (which will be my next lens purchase when it's available). Or the 80-400VR if your budget allows.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
424
Location
Villanova, PA
Why do you need the 18-200 vr if you have the 70-300 vr?

Aernout
Well there are times when the 70mm doesn't give me enough of an angle to get group portraits, so I would like to use the 18-200 and leave it on the camera for most of the time, and just use the 70-300 when I need the extra range for wildlife.
 
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
393
Location
4 meter minus sea level.
Well there are times when the 70mm doesn't give me enough of an angle to get group portraits, so I would like to use the 18-200 and leave it on the camera for most of the time, and just use the 70-300 when I need the extra range for wildlife.
Yes, now i understand, i am finding out it is difficult to find a proper lens set i bought a d50 with the 18-55, but i do know i want some more zoom etc...
now i see why people fall in love with the 18-200 VR.
 
Since you have the 18-200mm VR, if you simply want to extend your reach, I'd go with the 300mm f/4. If you're looking for something faster and yet still longish, the 180 f/2.8 is the way to go. The 70-300mm VR is a great little lens but there is quite a lot of overlap between it and the 18-200mm. The 80-400mm VR would be an additional way to extend your reach further.

Shooting wildlife or BIF can be problematic with a slower lens -- if that is your primary goal with a longer lens the 300mm f/4 would be the best choice. The 180mm f/2.8 is faster, of course, but doesn't have as much reach unless you put a teleconverter on it (and I'm sure not that you can with that lens). Ideally the 300mm f/2.8 is the best for shooting wildlife and BIF and a teleconverter can be added easily without as much light loss penalty as is experienced with the 300mm f/4. However, one of these may be out of your budget range....
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
904
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Why do you need the 18-200 vr if you have the 70-300 vr?

Aernout
because the 70-300VR doesn't cover the range from 24-69mm :wink:

The 18-200VR is more of a general purpose "walkaround" lens. 70mm is pretty close indoors, and is no good for group photo's, or what not.

If you have any lenses that can come close to 70mm focal length, put it at that and leave it there, and see if you could live with just that as your starting point. It's the easiest way, I find, to see if a certain focal length will work for your shooting style.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
20,719
Location
SW Virginia
Another vote for 70-300 VR

I would also recommend the 70-300VR. I have the Nikkor 12-24, 18-200VR, and 70-300VR and find that to be a very complete set for my purposes. For "macro", I just put a Canon 500D on the 18-200VR (I put macro in quotes because that combo is not a true macro lens, but close enough for my purposes).

When my wife commandeers the 18-200VR I fill the gap between 24 and 70mm with two primes: 35/2 and 50/1.8.

Suits me, but eventually I'll probably acquire a 17-55/2.8.
 

Latest posts

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