Would I miss the 200 to 300 range? (18-70/70-300VR for 18-200VR)

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Paintguru, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. Paintguru

    Paintguru

    336
    Dec 28, 2006
    Detroit, MI
    Thinking of selling my 18-70 and 70-300VR and getting an 18-200 VR. I've run into too many situations where I need to swap the lenses to get the shot I want and (in wildlife cases) end up missing the shot completely. I like the thought of having one lens for all situations, but I would be giving up that 200 to 300 range. Someday, I would like to take sports pictures of my potential children, among other things. Just curious if I would be doing more harm then good by doing this swap.
     
  2. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    DON'T DO IT!!!!

    The IQ of the 70-300VR over the 18-200 in the overlapping range is HUGE. Seeing the difference, I sold my 18-200. The 70-300 results are much better than the price would suggest. I would KEEP IT!!

    Wife and I both discovered this; we both owned 18-200 and both own 70-300 presently. We solved the switching lens problem by both buying a second body. This is a good time to scoop up a bargain on the Cafe for a lightly used body.
     
  3. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    agree with John
    and I would say the 18-70 is better in its range as well
    some distortion at 18mm, but not nearly as much as the 18-200
     
  4. +1 with John and Frank. While the 18-200 is a great convience lens, you gain IQ by using your two current lenses.

    I to had the 18-200 when it was first introduced and ended up going back to my 18-70/70-300 combo.
     
  5. tfenne

    tfenne

    125
    Apr 10, 2008
    Cambridge, MA
    Another thing to consider is that the 18-200 isn't really 200mm at the long end until focused pretty close to infinity. In you're focused relatively closely it comes up quite short. It may have the same problem, but you might also want to look at the Tamron 28-300 VC - I keep seeing good things written about it and it's a little cheaper than the 18-200. You might be able to consider that as a replacement for just the 70-300mm.
     
  6. Paintguru

    Paintguru

    336
    Dec 28, 2006
    Detroit, MI
    Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I definitely like the image quality of the two, it is just the pain of lugging them both around and swapping lenses that gets to me :tongue:. Two bodies really isn't an option (doesn't help the lugging part). Guess I may just have to learn to switch lenses faster or something.
     
  7. Chris,

    I have the 200-400VR, and I find that there is very little use of the range between 200 and 300. There will be some, but I think the 200 would have been okay in those cases. I think a 18-200VR, though not the sharpest, is very versatile and will help you make images which you would have otherwise missed or wouldn't have been able to compose.

    When you really want long glass, get the 300/4 AFS, and a 1.4 TC to go with it. You will be happy, I really believe so.

    One thing I realized, the focal lengths of the old primes were so designed to provide for the optimum field of views for various situations. When using zooms, I kind of realized it by looking at the focal lengths in the exif data. So, in a nutshell, I don't think you will miss the 200-300 range too much. If you miss, then you should think of getting the 300/4 like I mentioned earlier.

    Good luck.
     
  8. gd1418

    gd1418

    195
    Feb 3, 2008
    Gurgaon, India
    Chris,

    have you thought of going in for the 18-135 instead of the 18-70? That would solve your wildlife problem to a great extent.

    I too do a lot of wildlife and have found that these two lenses in the kitty serve me well.
     
  9. Paintguru

    Paintguru

    336
    Dec 28, 2006
    Detroit, MI
    Do you find a need for some sort of VR at the 135 range? I must say I haven't had a need for my 18-70, but VR always seems like a nice addition. A good thought though.
     
  10. I'd sell the 70-300mm VR and pick up a Tamron 28-300mm VC. It's been very well reviewed and the overlap would greatly decrease your lens changes while keeping the same range and vibration reduction. You might also come out close to even depending on how much you can get for your 70-300mm VR
     
  11. Bearded

    Bearded

    24
    Oct 2, 2006
    Naperville, IL
    The 70-300mm is MUCH better at 200mm than the 18-200. Not to mention the extra 50% reach you get. Maybe think about a second body, if you're missing shots. D50's can be had for peanuts (I've seen them go for as low as $190 pn ebay).

    Joe
     
  12. gd1418

    gd1418

    195
    Feb 3, 2008
    Gurgaon, India
    Have not felt the need for VR at 135 till date. Handheld has worked great for me till now and I don't recall mounting the camera with this lens on a tripod for a shot.

    Also, I don't know if the 18-135 also comes with a VR version lens. I've to check with my vendor.

     
  13. The Nikon 70-300VR is really better than the third pary offers. The others might be getting closer but the 70-300VR is one of Nikon's little jewels, IMHO.

    Nancy
     
  14. nht800

    nht800

    Aug 26, 2008
    Missouri, USA
    I just switched from 18-200 VR to 16-85/70-300 VR.
    Both lenses are better than the 18-200 in sharpness, color, contrast:
    --From 70 to 200mm: you will see 70-300 VR lens is much better than the 18-200 easily.
    -- From 18-85mm: the sharpness difference is noticeable only at 100% crop/

    I don't have but I know 18-70 is great lens. You can consider selling it to get 18-105 VR or 16-85 VR, however.
     
  15. Paintguru

    Paintguru

    336
    Dec 28, 2006
    Detroit, MI
    Thanks all, guess I will hold onto the 70-300VR for now. Guess I need to figure out a better way to "travel light"/"minimal swapping" when it comes to going on vacation, etc.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.