Best Nikon (or equivalent) zoom lens
Feb 25, 2017 10:50:04 #
harryd
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
kb6kgx wrote:
We will be going on an Alaska cruise at the end of... (show quote)
I've read where some people thought the lens wasn't too good at 300 but at
64 years old my eyes aren't that sharp all the time.
Feb 25, 2017 11:06:45 #
In the stage of photography your in going from a D80 to a D7100, You will find the Nikon 18-200 a wonderful lens. It really doesn't matter if its a vri or vrii model. The only difference between good copies of them is a lens lock. I had two and sold one with a camera I was selling. Kept the other to use on a D300 I sold. When I sold the D300, I kept the remaining 18-200. It didn't take long to buy a D7200 so I would have a light weight DX camera for a walk around. To me the lens is that good. I also shot high end FX cameras and high end FX lenses, but acknowledge the quality of the work the D7200 with the 18-200 can do. If I was to do another trip to Alaska, that's the combination I would take along and leave the heavy FX equipment home.
For kb6kgx... Stay with the Nikon 70-300 vr and check (Search). This question has been asked and answered many times.
For kb6kgx... Stay with the Nikon 70-300 vr and check (Search). This question has been asked and answered many times.
Feb 25, 2017 12:14:23 #
harryd wrote:
I agree with you about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. There are much better, more expensive lenses but
I've used this lens for several years on a D300s at baseball games and football practice from the side lines and always made some good shots.
I've used this lens for several years on a D300s at baseball games and football practice from the side lines and always made some good shots.
When you said you used the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 at baseball games I remembered that I used that lens on a Nikon D90 at a baseball game in Richmond, VA. Here are a few photos from that game.
Feb 25, 2017 12:23:02 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
fourlocks wrote:
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 -... (show quote)
1) an 18-200 should have higher image quality
2)No, but most have VR which extends handholding and low light usefulness.
3)Nikon will have higher resale value. Other part is too general- lens by lens evaluations and tests are available online.
Feb 25, 2017 12:43:43 #
I have the 18-200 VR that came with a D300. After using it far a while I gave up the 18-55. When out for a walk with the D7200 I often leave the zoom in the car and just slap on the 35mm 1.8.
--
--
Feb 25, 2017 13:01:26 #
Lagoonguy
Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL
I've got both the Nikon 18-200 VR II and the 18-300 that I use on a D7000 & D7100. They are both great general purpose lenses on DX cameras. I actually prefer the 18-300 over the 18-200 but the 18-300 is about 9 ozs heavier which you might get tired of when using all day. My copy might be the exception but when comparing both the 18-300 looks sharper to me plus the extra reach is very useful. Neither compare to quality low ratio glass with quality coatings that many Nikon and some Sigma Art, Tokina and Tamron lenses provide. I now prefer to use my FX equipment because they IMHO provide better photos but you cannot beat the versatility that the 18-200 & 300 provide. When traveling in Europe I have toted two D750's and two 30-32 oz lenses in a backpack and believe me that gets heavy. In that circumstance next time I'm going for the lighter DX outfit.
Feb 25, 2017 13:12:30 #
I recently went with a 18-140mm. It is pretty sharp throughout the range. I had a 55-300 was pretty good to 250mm.
Feb 25, 2017 13:14:21 #
Feb 25, 2017 13:16:15 #
Feb 25, 2017 13:30:05 #
Feb 25, 2017 13:34:56 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
harryd wrote:
I've read where some people thought the lens wasn't too good at 300 but at
64 years old my eyes aren't that sharp all the time.
64 years old my eyes aren't that sharp all the time.
There is a Matt Granger video that shows quite sharp as low as 1/30 sec.
Feb 25, 2017 13:35:55 #
1. No. I find 18-200 to be a much better lens although I did miss the extra length. After purchasing the AFS-FX Nikkor 200-500 5.6 (also an excellent lens, IMHO) that problem was sufficiently solved for me. I sold the 18-300 I had a few months after receiving the 18-200 as a gift, and used the proceeds to help buy the aforementioned 200-500. I have not noticed the problems with barrel distortion and pincushion distortion mentioned by a previous responder, but I'm just an amateur and certainly am NOT an expert on image quality. The bokeh may be a tiny bit more pronounced, but I personally don't find it displeasing.
2.Not that I've found.
3. I would stay with Nikon lenses. I find them to be sturdier, and they are always easy to use. I'm sure there are some fine lenses from other companies, but the Tamron and Sigma equivalents that I've tried just don't feel right in my hands.
2.Not that I've found.
3. I would stay with Nikon lenses. I find them to be sturdier, and they are always easy to use. I'm sure there are some fine lenses from other companies, but the Tamron and Sigma equivalents that I've tried just don't feel right in my hands.
Feb 25, 2017 13:58:36 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
Before you make a decision consider the type of photography that you do. The 18-55mm is not so bad and I can say 75% of my photos could be done with this lens. I like super wide and macro lenses. The 55-300mm lens is not so bad as it is fairly light weight. The alternative to this is the FX 70-300mm (faster focus) as for the wide side the 18-55, 16-80 (f2.8-4), 16-85 and the 18-140mm are good choices. I rarely go into a photo situation where I can't choose the general focal length range that I want.
Feb 25, 2017 14:03:05 #
I have the f2.8 zoom lenses covering from 17 to 200mm, a 200-400 f4, a 200-500mm f5.6 and two 18-200mm. I have two 18-200mm Nikon lenses to avoid fights with my wife. It's a great lens...light weight and incredibly useful, that sees more use than any of our lenses except maybe for the 70-200mm. I photograph an entry in three parades each year and I don't ever want to go back to carrying the heavier lenses and juggling them to change lenses while moving with a parade. The lens isn't quite as sharp and the f2.8 zoom lenses I mentioned and it may have more distortion, but it isn't objectionable and LR does a great job of correcting for it anyhow. The one problem I've found is that if you use the lense a lot, expect it to have to go back to Nikon for service at some point.
Feb 25, 2017 14:05:24 #
I have the 18-200 and it only comes off my camera when a specific shot mandates another lens. Very good quality IMO
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.