18-200mm vs 55-200mm IQ?

[18.percent.gary]

I got the 55-200 VR from a friend for next to nothing about a year ago and have been fairly impressed so far with the IQ for such a cheap "kit lens".

Now I have the chance to buy the 18-200 from another friend for mere peanuts.

I've never really seen a side-by-side comparison of the IQ of the two lenses and was wondering if anyone here has any first-hand input or general impressions. I'm not interested in differences in build quality, versatility, blah blah blah.. I understand that all already.

The plan would be to buy the 18-200 and sell the 55-200 to cover most of the cost.

Thanks

The camera in question is a D300.

 

[jrizal]

I don't have the 18-200mm but only the 55-200mm. But here is a comparison of both lenses. But if you say you can get the 18-200mm for peanuts, I would go for it primarily for convenience. As for IQ, I have the lowest end (note not low end but lowest end) 70-300mm AF-G and is quite comparable in terms of IQ with the 55-200mm from my perspective. There is also the argument that the longer longer the focal length, the lesser the IQ which is due to technical limitations. And though there is truth to this argument, I seriously doubt the 18-200mm will be that bad and it is a complete dud. So for "peanuts" the 18-200mm is highly recommended. Buying it at full price though may make me think twice though - price and IQ concerns vs overall convenience.

Nikon 18-200mm VR vs. 55-200mm VR

 

[cgipson1]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

 

[jrizal]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

There will always be the option of better glass but always at a cost. If I have the money, I'd still dump the 70-300mm AF-S VR go for the 70-200mm 2.8 for IQ alone. But the OP is debating that if an 18-200mm selling for peanuts is still worth it. (Do note that the 18-200mm brand new is more expensive than a brand new 70-300mm VR) So I suppose the 70-300mm option is out for the time being. My question to the OP is how much is "peanuts"?

 

[molested_cow]

Image quality diff? I don't know, but AF, probably slower.

 

[ph0enix]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

There will always be the option of better glass but always at a cost. If I have the money, I'd still dump the 70-300mm AF-S VR go for the 70-200mm 2.8 for IQ alone.

Most people would but now you're comparing a consumer grade lens to a pro lens that costs roughly 4 times as much. I think the 70-300 VR is a fair suggestion.

 

[cgipson1]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

There will always be the option of better glass but always at a cost. If I have the money, I'd still dump the 70-300mm AF-S VR go for the 70-200mm 2.8 for IQ alone. But the OP is debating that if an 18-200mm selling for peanuts is still worth it. (Do note that the 18-200mm brand new is more expensive than a brand new 70-300mm VR) So I suppose the 70-300mm option is out for the time being. My question to the OP is how much is "peanuts"?

Well DUH!!! $500.00 versus $2400.00! I AM impressed that you even know about a PRO lens like that though!

And since I really doubt that you have ever shot a 70-200 VRII 2.8, I am surprised you have an opinion, since it is probably only based on what you have read! While I HAVE used the 70-300... and if I didn't have the 70-200, I would probably have the 70-300 (or maybe the 80-200)!

 

[cgipson1]

Image quality diff? I don't know, but AF, probably slower.

Yes.. IQ difference... surprisingly much! And AF.. yes, faster.. and it doesn't make the same amount of noise those "kit" lenses do....

 

[jrizal]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

There will always be the option of better glass but always at a cost. If I have the money, I'd still dump the 70-300mm AF-S VR go for the 70-200mm 2.8 for IQ alone. But the OP is debating that if an 18-200mm selling for peanuts is still worth it. (Do note that the 18-200mm brand new is more expensive than a brand new 70-300mm VR) So I suppose the 70-300mm option is out for the time being. My question to the OP is how much is "peanuts"?

Well DUH!!! $500.00 versus $2400.00! I AM impressed that you even know about a PRO lens like that though!

And since I really doubt that you have ever shot a 70-200 VRII 2.8, I am surprised you have an opinion, since it is probably only based on what you have read! While I HAVE used the 70-300... and if I didn't have the 70-200, I would probably have the 70-300 (or maybe the 80-200)!

There is a thing called loaning lenses from a shop or someone who has several so I seriously doubt the validity of your conclusions!

Reason why I gave the 70-200mm comparison is due to the suggestion of something outside the OPs parameter of comparing the 55-200mm and the 18-200mm considering he can get one for peanuts. There are and always will better lenses out there hence my mentioning of a pro lens as an example and a cost. But let's keep it to the OP's parameter. Having used one (but not necessarily owning one) I must agree with you on the 70-300mm VR price wise and IQ wise. But there are other options out there. The pro lens I mentioned is a totally different "animal" though. But then again we are really talking about the OP's original query and limit as such. I respect your opinion on ditching 55-200mm to the 70-300mm and I tried to keep it within the parameters. But really your comments on this and your and conclusions are truly laughable or deplorable depending on the way you look at it. Personally, I prefer laughable.

PS For the other readers out there, I apologize and do want to flame or troll someone else. This will get nowhere. Let's stick to the topic and truly help the OP out.

 

[jrizal]

My advice would be to sell the 55-200, and upgrade to the 70-300 AFS VR. For the money, one of the best lenses nikon makes.... far superior in IQ, Focus speed, and general build to either the 55-200 or the 18-200...

There will always be the option of better glass but always at a cost. If I have the money, I'd still dump the 70-300mm AF-S VR go for the 70-200mm 2.8 for IQ alone.

Most people would but now you're comparing a consumer grade lens to a pro lens that costs roughly 4 times as much. I think the 70-300 VR is a fair suggestion.

It was a hypothetical suggestion since I mentioned "if I had the money..." and I did not say that the OP should go for the pro glass. The OP was asking about the 18-200mm is worth it considering he can get it for "peanuts". If he can it get cheap then why not? But my question earlier is how much is peanuts. But going for solutions outside the parameters can confuse things for the OP though I know where cgipson1 coming from by suggesting another (admittedly a solid) lens (his demeanor though is a different issue altogether). Do note I have included Ken Rockwell's opinion on the two lenses so that the OP can further decide on which is better. Some may argue whether or not Ken's advice is good or not, but definitely he has more experience than me. And if my analogy or comparison of getting the 70-200mm has led to some confusion, then that is my fault. But I stand on my suggestion to keep the recommendations within the OP's parameters. And should the OP want more options then let us all help him.

 

[cgipson1]

It was a hypothetical suggestion since I mentioned "if I had the money..." and I did not say that the OP should go for the pro glass. The OP was asking about the 18-200mm is worth it considering he can get it for "peanuts". If he can it get cheap then why not? But my question earlier is how much is peanuts. But going for solutions outside the parameters can confuse things for the OP though I know where cgipson1 coming from by suggesting another (admittedly a solid) lens (his demeanor though is a different issue altogether). Do note I have included Ken Rockwell's opinion on the two lenses so that the OP can further decide on which is better. Some may argue whether or not Ken's advice is good or not, but definitely he has more experience than me. And if my analogy or comparison of getting the 70-200mm has led to some confusion, then that is my fault. But I stand on my suggestion to keep the recommendations within the OP's parameters. And should the OP want more options then let us all help him.

quoting Ken Rockwell... nuff said! Laughable indeed! lol!

 

[jrizal]

Oh the immaturity...