Nikon 18-200 vs Nikon 70-300 VRII

[cj-lagaya]

I am a Nikon D3100 user. My kit lens is the 18-55mm and I also have 50mm. I'm thinking of buyig tamron 18-200mm OR 70-300mm because that's the only brand that suits my budget. I am into portrait photography at the same time I also love doing event photography. Since I live in a province from the Philippines, near the forest at slightly in a higher level land, when I try to do nature or landscape photography, it makes me look for longer mm. Because our place is almost at the higher level than the city, moon, stars and even birds are slightly reachable that's why I wanted to also try wildlife photography. I wonder what lens should I buy that fits to my lifestyle ? The 18-200mm or the 70-300mm? And also, what lens is best suits for candid photos especially for children? Because I also have so many nieces and nephews..

 

[Braineack]

the 18-200 and 70-300 make no sense for portrait or event photography.

the 70-300 is good for sports and wildlife.
the 18-200 is god for general all purpose.

 

[raventepes]

I use the 18-105 paired with the 70-300 as my general walkaround solution, and it works well. Both of them are decently sharp, but I will add that on my sample of the 70-300, after 250mm, it gets really soft, really quickly, especially focusing in at long distance. I tend to think of it as an "Okay" 70-300, but a "Great" 70-200.

Between the 18-200 and 70-300, I'd get the 70-300 in half a heartbeat.

 

[shadowlands]

I once owned them both. Loved them both, and you'll love either.
If you want the "do it all" and not swap... 18-200 is golden for travel, etc... 70-300 if you want a tad more reach and you're not looking for the do it all.

 

[goodguy]

Your 50mm will be a much better portrait lens then either the 70-300mm or 18-200mm
The 70-300mm is a very good cheap telezoom and as long as you have plenty of light it can work well as a wildlife or sports lens.
The 18-200mm is a general use lens as Braineck said, not really good in anything, pretty soft and all it does well is give you a very flexible focal range.
With the 18-55 and 70-300mm you cover yourself rather nicely with the small gap of 55-70mm
If you want to move to the next level you will need better glass which mean investing more money.
You can get the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, great portrait lens and on a crop sensor is a moderate tele lens which is very helpful in very dim lighting where you need fast shutter speed.
One of the sharpest lenses in Nikon's armada.

 

[nerwin]

I love my 70-300 VR, it's been really good to me. Shooting at f/8, I have got some extremely sharp results and the VR is very good I am able to handhold down to like 1/30th and still get a sharp result. ALSO the 70-300 VR doesn't have zoom creep like the 18-200.

 

[goodguy]

I love my 70-300 VR, it's been really good to me. Shooting at f/8, I have got some extremely sharp results and the VR is very good I am able to handhold down to like 1/30th and still get a sharp result. ALSO the 70-300 VR doesn't have zoom creep like the 18-200.

I used to own the 70-300mm VR which got sold when I got my 70-200mm 2.8
Few weeks ago I borrowed my friend's Nikon 70-300mm VR and I was amazed how sharp it was, very good lens for relatively little money, only real drawback of this lens is its rather restricting aperture which means its a good lighting lens only if you want to get really good results.

 

[nerwin]

I love my 70-300 VR, it's been really good to me. Shooting at f/8, I have got some extremely sharp results and the VR is very good I am able to handhold down to like 1/30th and still get a sharp result. ALSO the 70-300 VR doesn't have zoom creep like the 18-200.

I used to own the 70-300mm VR which got sold when I got my 70-200mm 2.8
Few weeks ago I borrowed my friend's Nikon 70-300mm VR and I was amazed how sharp it was, very good lens for relatively little money, only real drawback of this lens is its rather restricting aperture which means its a good lighting lens only if you want to get really good results.

I actually been shooting with it more now that I got the D610, it seems to focus faster and when the lighting isn't so good, I can bump up the ISO knowing I'll get a clean shot.

 

[Dave442]

As the OP noted "every once in a while" for more reach then I suggest the 70-300mm VR. I have this lens and often use it outdoors. I will often set it to the focal length I want before starting to shoot and it does a good job of staying there.

 

[goodguy]

I love my 70-300 VR, it's been really good to me. Shooting at f/8, I have got some extremely sharp results and the VR is very good I am able to handhold down to like 1/30th and still get a sharp result. ALSO the 70-300 VR doesn't have zoom creep like the 18-200.

I used to own the 70-300mm VR which got sold when I got my 70-200mm 2.8
Few weeks ago I borrowed my friend's Nikon 70-300mm VR and I was amazed how sharp it was, very good lens for relatively little money, only real drawback of this lens is its rather restricting aperture which means its a good lighting lens only if you want to get really good results.

I actually been shooting with it more now that I got the D610, it seems to focus faster and when the lighting isn't so good, I can bump up the ISO knowing I'll get a clean shot.

I posted few days ago my experience from Portland how I was too visible with the D750 and Tami 70-200mm 2.8
I decided for places where I am too visible I will use my D5100 with a smaller telezoom.
I was considering few lenses among them the 70-300mm VR but at the end I opted for the 55-200mm VR, the 70-300mm would have been the better choice but since it will be a lens I will use seldomly and I really am tight with cash I let the 70-300mm wait for next time.

 

[PaulWog]

I am a Nikon D3100 user. My kit lens is the 18-55mm and I also have 50mm. I'm thinking of buyig tamron 18-200mm OR 70-300mm because that's the only brand that suits my budget. I am into portrait photography at the same time I also love doing event photography. Since I live in a province from the Philippines, near the forest at slightly in a higher level land, when I try to do nature or landscape photography, it makes me look for longer mm. Because our place is almost at the higher level than the city, moon, stars and even birds are slightly reachable that's why I wanted to also try wildlife photography. I wonder what lens should I buy that fits to my lifestyle ? The 18-200mm or the 70-300mm? And also, what lens is best suits for candid photos especially for children? Because I also have so many nieces and nephews..

The 70-300mm VR is a good all-around lens. I've used it throughout its range. If you're at the beach, in an open park, or just anywhere really where you have enough space between you and your subject (at least 5 meters), then the lens will work well for portraits of all sorts & candid shots. You can also stitch together panoramas somewhere between 70 and 100mm (or longer if you want), and you can get some creative shots.

I've posted three photos below. The last one is a 70mm candid full body portrait with the 70-300mm vr.

Here's why you might want to consider the 18-200:
The first two photos I chose just because I took the shots from a similar spot on the beach, pointed in a similar direction. The wide shot was taken about 1 hour after the telephoto shot, and the wide shot was taken about 20 meters back from where I took the telephoto shot. Look into the distance (down at the very last most distant tree on the wide shot). You can see the mountains in the background just past that tree. Now look at the telephoto shot: Same mountains. While this doesn't illustrate every possibility and every difference between an ultra wide angle and a telephoto lens, the point I'm getting at is that an 18-200 could switch between a wide angle, and a telephoto perspective. In a split second, you could switch between two different kinds of shots without moving, and without reframing.

Here's why you might want to consider the 70-300:
You get 100mm extra reach, and you get a little bit better performance for telephoto work. The 70-300 is also very snappy to focus, and it is consistent when it focuses. The difference between 200mm and 300mm can make a huuuge difference, depending on what you intend to photograph. I know that 300mm isn't enough for me most of the time, so I'm usually cropping in my photographs to get a 600mm, 900mm, or even 1200mm equivalent. If you find yourself cropping in a shot taken at 200mm and you need a 1200mm equivalent crop, you might not be totally satisfied with the results.

11mm (taken with the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6):

180mm (taken with the Nikon 70-300mm VR):

70mm (taken with the Nikon 70-300mm VR):