nikon 18-55 vr lens or nikon 18-200 vr lens?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by blue534, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. blue534

    blue534 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi. i will be beginner. which lens is good quality in the photos. when i search in the sites, i see that 18-55mm vr have better quality in the photos. thanks...
     
  2. nikonpreap

    nikonpreap TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Samriel

    Samriel TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Obviously not the year that technology has evolved enough that a lens with a zoom ration of over 10 is optically superior to the one with a zoom ratio of 3.

    I'd say you should go for either the 18-55mm, or get a a good third party lens, like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro, or Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 - gives you much better value for your money. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens, but it does have somewhat inferior image quality, and it tends to make people lazy (why buy a dSLR and not change lenses?).

    Good luck!
     
  4. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    well this is 2009..... the 18-55 has less barrel distortion at 18mm, is nominally sharper, and has a sturdier build reputation.

    the 18-200 kills the 18-55 in image quality at focal ranges of 56mm and above and has VRII giving an extra stop...

    it's a little silly to compare these two lenses as some compromise in image quality is a fact of life in superzooms...

    having said that..... grabbing the 18-200 and DXO Optics would give you unrivaled convenience and top notch consumer image quality.

    you have to consider your budget and appetite for focal range.... if you mostly shoot 18-55, but can afford the 18-200, then get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as suggested below.

    i wouldn't worry too much about the "lazy" label associated with a superzoom.... you prove your worth with great images, not how many times you had to change your lens to get that great image.
     
  5. dcclark

    dcclark TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houghton, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    OK, lots of technical discussion. I recommend not bothering worrying about details of lens quality until you're past the "beginner" stage, and understand the basics of photography better. At that point, you may be in a position to evaluate lenses based on your own needs and ideas. For now, the 18-55 VR is a very good lens, and you won't notice its limitations for quite a while.
     
  6. dcclark

    dcclark TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houghton, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Because I travel a lot and want the additional features and flexibility of a DSLR, but not the additional pain of carrying a bag full of lenses. I actually bought my 18-200 VR after a long trip in which my camera bag caused me nothing but trouble, getting lost, being in my way, etc. After that, I sold off several of my old lenses which it completely replaced.

    We all have different reasons for what we do, and blanket labels about lenses or styles really don't help.
     
  7. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    unless the op is constantly looking to twist the focus ring past 55mm
     
  8. dcclark

    dcclark TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houghton, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Very good point. :) However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.
     
  9. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    While the 2 lenses are apples and oranges, the 18-200 will always be the better lens. It will also be more versatile.

    The issues with the 18-200:
    - soft on both ends
    - vignettes at both ends

    These issues are both easily resolved in post process within a few clicks. What the 18-200 does that the 18-55 doesn't are:

    - has less barrel distortion at the short end
    - has less pin cushioning
    - has better sharpness... matter of fact, it has the sharpness of the near $2000 70-200 F/2.8 lens in between 50-150mm at apertures around F/10-F/13
    - has greater focal range
    - has VR
    - and it has a bigger price for the extra "stuff".

    The 18-200 is the ultimate walk around lens and I use it a lot to this day... however, when ultimate quality is what I desire, the 18-200 comes off and is replaced with something better.
     
  10. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    no doubt...
     
  11. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you look at the sweet spots on both lenses, they are both going to be so close as to be inseperable... however that sweet spot on the 18-200 is between 50-150mm and on the 18-55 between 30-45mm. Both are sharpest over F/10 as well.

    Again greater versatility goes to the 18-200, but again... there is a $$ to pay.
     
  12. Samriel

    Samriel TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I completely agree, and apologize if my previous post was somewhat misleading.

    As mentioned, superzooms are very versatile and practical, especially when size and space is a problem. I'd still suggest you get a third party (Sigma or Tamron) 17-50mm F2.8 unless you really want to save space by using only one lens, or really need the length for shooting subjects that are further away. You'll get better image quality, and some extra cash for your next purchase.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
18-55 vs 18-200 nikon
,
18-55 vs 18-200 lens
,
18-55 vs 18-200
,
18-55 lens vs 18-200
,
nikkor 18-200 vs 18-55
,
nikkor 18-55 vs 18-200
,

nikon 18-200 vs 18-55

,
nikon 18-55 vr sweet spot
,

nikon 18-55 vs 18-200

,
nikon 18-55 vs 18-200 lens