18-200mm comparison
Nov 25, 2013 10:52:48 #
Is the Nikon 18-200 VRII worth 4 or 500 more than the Sigma or Tamron Thanks in advance
Nov 25, 2013 11:06:50 #
just exposed
Loc: British Columbia Canada
Hey Boberic
I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 but just couldnt justify the huge price difference. I ended up going with the Sigma 18-250 and love it pictueres are very sharp and give a good range.
I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 but just couldnt justify the huge price difference. I ended up going with the Sigma 18-250 and love it pictueres are very sharp and give a good range.
Nov 25, 2013 11:20:31 #
Not unless you are a pro. I have two of the Tamrons on my DX bodies and they work just fine. With good technique an average lens can work as good or better than an expensive/better lens that is poorly used. Good Luck.
Nov 25, 2013 11:33:38 #
boberic wrote:
Is the Nikon 18-200 VRII worth 4 or 500 more than the Sigma or Tamron Thanks in advance
I have the Sigma 18-200 on my Canon. I'm not quite sure why but I prefer Sigma to Tamron. I expect the quality is about equal. At any rate, the Sigma is on my camera about 99% of the time. I use aperture preferred mode and the images (shot at F/8 if possible) are very sharp.
Minimum focus distance is about 18 inches so it is not a macro lens but does nicely for close up photography.
Nov 25, 2013 11:37:06 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
chase4 wrote:
Not unless you are a pro. I have two of the Tamrons on my DX bodies and they work just fine. With good technique an average lens can work as good or better than an expensive/better lens that is poorly used. Good Luck.
Pros will rarely use an 18-200mm super zoom. Strictly an amateur lens regardless of the price.
Nov 25, 2013 11:41:00 #
Thanks much. Not a pro so I think I will save the money for a grip and keep the extra change.
Nov 26, 2013 06:40:43 #
I have this lens, and my evaluation is that it is a soft lens in that the images are not tack sharp. So, it is ok for taking people pictures (like informal family that don't have to be great shots). I do use this lens a lot because of the range (and I haven't been able to justify spending the extra $$ for sharper lenses, yet), but as a camera lens, the 18-200 is just not sharp if you like tack sharp images. otherwise it's ok.
Nov 26, 2013 07:20:48 #
Nikonhermit
Loc: In This Place
chase4 wrote:
Not unless you are a pro. I have two of the Tamrons on my DX bodies and they work just fine. With good technique an average lens can work as good or better than an expensive/better lens that is poorly used. Good Luck.
The 18-200 is considered to be a "walkabout" lens that does almost everything very well, but nothing superbly. It is not a pro lens.
Nov 26, 2013 07:39:31 #
just exposed wrote:
Hey Boberic
I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 but just couldnt justify the huge price difference. I ended up going with the Sigma 18-250 and love it pictueres are very sharp and give a good range.
I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 but just couldnt justify the huge price difference. I ended up going with the Sigma 18-250 and love it pictueres are very sharp and give a good range.
I have the Nikon 18-200 and have never been truly happy with it. The images are always a little soft. If doing it all again, I would try something else. When I bought the D600, I got the 28-300 to go along with it. World of difference.
Nov 26, 2013 07:41:18 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
I borrowed a Nikkor 18-200 VR ll with Zoom lock for our trip to Kauai later this week. Tried it under several different scenarios an it is awesome. When my wife saw some of the images I had taken with it, she told me to go but one. We have a private doors off helicopter tour early next week, and you can not change lenses.
Awesome lens.
Duane
Awesome lens.
Duane
Nov 26, 2013 08:34:25 #
For what it's worth, I've been using mine for 4 years with my Nikon D300s and think it's a very good lens. I shoot mostly landscapes usually at the wide end of the zoom range. It is a great every day walkaround lens if you don't mind the size. My 35 and 50mm prime lenses are much sharper.
Since I don't use the tele end as much, I'm going to purchase the Sigma 18-35 f1-8 as soon as it's available. I'll keep the 18-200 in my bag for those few times that I need a longer lens. It's not a pro lens, but it's pretty damn good, and I'm really fussy about my image quality. I recommend it !
Since I don't use the tele end as much, I'm going to purchase the Sigma 18-35 f1-8 as soon as it's available. I'll keep the 18-200 in my bag for those few times that I need a longer lens. It's not a pro lens, but it's pretty damn good, and I'm really fussy about my image quality. I recommend it !
Nov 26, 2013 09:38:21 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
Edmond: FVI
If you have had the lens for four years, you most certainly have just the VR, with the RED VR on the barrel. That was the first lens I borrowed and it was good but not as sharp as my 18-105 or 70-300 VR. The second lens another friend loaned me, and the one I eventually bought is the 18-200 VR ll-zoom lock. It has a GOLD VR + a zoom lock, and at least these two are sharper than my other two, (18-105/70-300), and the 18-200 VR.
Believe Ken Rockwell rated the old and new the same, but the ones I had the new is quite a bit better.
Duane
If you have had the lens for four years, you most certainly have just the VR, with the RED VR on the barrel. That was the first lens I borrowed and it was good but not as sharp as my 18-105 or 70-300 VR. The second lens another friend loaned me, and the one I eventually bought is the 18-200 VR ll-zoom lock. It has a GOLD VR + a zoom lock, and at least these two are sharper than my other two, (18-105/70-300), and the 18-200 VR.
Believe Ken Rockwell rated the old and new the same, but the ones I had the new is quite a bit better.
Duane
Edmund Dworakowski wrote:
For what it's worth, I've been using mine for 4 ye... (show quote)
Nov 26, 2013 10:42:10 #
Bear2,
I may be wrong about when I purchased the lens. Mine is the improved gold lettered VRII model. I think I purchased it with my D300s in 2010. Ken Rockwell's review and his including it as one of Nikon's best DX lenses is the reason I purchased it. He also included the Nikon 50f1.8D, 35f1.8G, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and Tokina 100 f2.8 Macro in his DX list all of which are in my bag and find excellent in every respect.
I only hope that Nikon would announce and release the D400. That and my soon to be purchased Sigma 18-35 f1.8 would give me, what I think, is the perfect bag of kit.
I may be wrong about when I purchased the lens. Mine is the improved gold lettered VRII model. I think I purchased it with my D300s in 2010. Ken Rockwell's review and his including it as one of Nikon's best DX lenses is the reason I purchased it. He also included the Nikon 50f1.8D, 35f1.8G, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and Tokina 100 f2.8 Macro in his DX list all of which are in my bag and find excellent in every respect.
I only hope that Nikon would announce and release the D400. That and my soon to be purchased Sigma 18-35 f1.8 would give me, what I think, is the perfect bag of kit.
Nov 26, 2013 10:51:54 #
Edmund Dworakowski wrote:
For what it's worth, I've been using mine for 4 ye... (show quote)
Hey Ed. the 18-35mm Sigma is available, I got mine a couple of weeks ago. It is very sharp, I use it on my D7100. It seems to stay there.
Phil
Nov 26, 2013 11:02:53 #
Cool !
Adorama's site still said available for pre-order just a day ago. I'll have to give them a call.
Enjoy !
Adorama's site still said available for pre-order just a day ago. I'll have to give them a call.
Enjoy !
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.