nikon lens
Sep 13, 2016 19:10:04 #
undecided between Nikon 18-200 VRii and the Nikon 70-300 vr , Thank you
Sep 13, 2016 19:15:17 #
Sep 13, 2016 19:17:20 #
I'm not familiar with either lens. I own a 55-200 which is now in the closet. I bought a 55-300 and love it. Don't short change yourself on length...I think you will regret it...
Sep 13, 2016 19:27:13 #
Sep 13, 2016 19:28:22 #
Generally, the wider the zoom range, the more compromises a lens has. It's hard to beat the convenience of the 18-200 or 300, for sure, but if you want really sharp, crisp images, that's not on the high end of performers.
Sep 13, 2016 19:32:20 #
While both lenses serve their purpose, I use my 28-300 more than I use my 18-200.
Sep 13, 2016 19:32:21 #
I have the 18-300mm and love it's convenience for some general applications, but the image quality can't hold a candle to my primes.
Sep 13, 2016 19:35:46 #
franko wrote:
undecided between Nikon 18-200 VRii and the Nikon 70-300 vr , Thank you
If you want convenience - the 18-200. If you want better image quality at 200 and beyond and can give up the 18-70 range - then the 70-300.
Sep 13, 2016 19:55:26 #
I have the 18-200mm VRII and I am quite satisfied with it. I find it to be a very sharp lens. That being said, often would like to have a little more reach.
Don
Don
Sep 13, 2016 20:48:30 #
I second that the nikkor 55-200 didn't have enough reach for me. It's not been used since I got the Nikkor AFS VR55-300. The 55-300 may not be as good as the f4 300mm prime, but it's about 1/8 the price, and 1/15th the price of the f2.8 300mm prime. One advantage of the zoom over the prime is it's easier to find the subject (like a small bird in the bush or in a tree) at 55mm and then zoom in to 300mm. It can be difficult to locate the subject with a 300mm prime. Like looking for an object in a room looking through a small keyhole.
Bunkershot wrote:
I'm not familiar with either lens. I own a 55-200 which is now in the closet. I bought a 55-300 and love it. Don't short change yourself on length...I think you will regret it...
Sep 13, 2016 20:57:34 #
Between the 2, I choose the 18-200. It is an all around lens. I have both lens and the 70-300 is just about average.
franko wrote:
8undecided between Nikon 18-200 VRii and the Nikon 70-300 vr , Thank you
Sep 13, 2016 22:34:23 #
Here's the problem with this question - it's rather meaningless. Not too far different from "thinking of buying a pickup truck - should I get a dually or a short bed".
The point is - without mentioning what you plan on doing with it, any answer is nothing more than a guess.
These lenses are obviously different - one is telephoto only - does that make a difference? Planning on doing street photography in NYC? Maybe the wide-angle side would be important. Or, want to pull in distant objects in your shots? Maybe the extra reach of the 70-300 is a better solution. Is IQ an issue? That might depend if you plan on printing poster sized images or just posting to Facebook where IQ is far less of an issue.
Maybe defining your needs will be of more use - then you can at least get better informed opinions. Heck, you don't even say what camera you use - FX or DX - if the former, then the 18-200 might not be worth it at all.
All I'm saying is, a nebulous and poorly written question will not garner any useful responses.
The point is - without mentioning what you plan on doing with it, any answer is nothing more than a guess.
These lenses are obviously different - one is telephoto only - does that make a difference? Planning on doing street photography in NYC? Maybe the wide-angle side would be important. Or, want to pull in distant objects in your shots? Maybe the extra reach of the 70-300 is a better solution. Is IQ an issue? That might depend if you plan on printing poster sized images or just posting to Facebook where IQ is far less of an issue.
Maybe defining your needs will be of more use - then you can at least get better informed opinions. Heck, you don't even say what camera you use - FX or DX - if the former, then the 18-200 might not be worth it at all.
All I'm saying is, a nebulous and poorly written question will not garner any useful responses.
Sep 14, 2016 04:50:04 #
mas24 wrote:
Get the FX 28-300mm. You won't be sorry.
This lens is widely recognized by many as one of Nikon's poorest quality current lenses. I'd avoid it. There are better lenses out there, for less than the $1000 they get for it.
http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/6
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=2
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E__814
http://www.lenstip.com/272.11-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_28-300_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Summary.html
About the only positive qualities for this lens is it's focal length range, focusing speed/accuracy and VR. Pointless if the image quality is mediocre.
Sep 14, 2016 06:21:56 #
Holy smokes... Get the 18-200mm lens for walking around and general photography, excellent lens.. Get the af-s 70-300mm vr lens if you like birding and wildlife, really an excellent lens for the money. I own both and Nothing wrong with either.........
Sep 14, 2016 07:03:47 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.