what lens should i get

[den9]

i have a 18-70mm f/3.5 and a 50mm f/1.8

i take mostly scenic shots but sometimes i take sports and wildlife shots

should i get the 80-200mm f/2.8
or the 18-200mm f/3.5 and sell my 18-70mm

the 18-200 is nice because its light and versatile, but the 70-200mm is a pro lens and fast and probaly sharper. id just hate switching lenses all the times, but if i got the 80-200 i already have the 18-70 so i would have a good set of lenses.

heres a question, is my 18-70mm sharper than the 18-200mm?

life is full of choices

 

[Sw1tchFX]

the 18-70 is MUCH sharper than the 18-200, most Nikkors are. I was able to use an 18-70 just the other day on a D200 and I was VERY surprised with it. Granted, I was shooting NEF, so there's none of that Jpeg blurring junk, but the 18-70, albeit with more distortion, was about as sharp as my 17-55 f/2.8-both wide open and stopped down. Stopped down they were equal and my 17-55 was sharper wide open at 17mm, but the 18-70 was sharper wide open at 50 and 70mm. That says alot for a $280 lens.

I've heard that the 18-70 can be crap or gold from sample to sample, so if you have a sharp sample, KEEP IT. Judging form the 18-70 i used, the only reason to use anything more expensive (the 17-55) is for the tighter build and f/2.8.

 

[den9]

i really want the 80-200 but i dont know how often id use it, or carry it around.
i thought the 18-200 would be nice, say im taking a wide angle shot of the city and i see something cool happening far away, i could zoom in real fast, or if im in the woods takin a pictures of the lake and out of no where i seen a hawk diving down for lunch.

most of my shots are scenic, but i go to race tracks once in a while, and sometimes i take pictures of animals. are there any other uses for a 80-200?

 

[kundalini]

I haven't used the 80-200mm but have read several reviews comparing that with the 70-200mm -VR. The 70-200mm is a chunk of change, heavy and big. But FFS it is an awesome lens. I got mine last week and am still amazed how good it is. If you can comfortably afford the entrance fee, by all means do yourself a favor. Otherwise, wait until you can. That was my Xmas gift to myself.

The compliment lens will be the 24-70mm f/2.8. My birthday is in January. I'm hoping it comes off back order by then.

 

[den9]

I haven't used the 80-200mm but have read several reviews comparing that with the 70-200mm -VR. The 70-200mm is a chunk of change, heavy and big. But FFS it is an awesome lens. I got mine last week and am still amazed how good it is. If you can comfortably afford the entrance fee, by all means do yourself a favor. Otherwise, wait until you can. That was my Xmas gift to myself.

The compliment lens will be the 24-70mm f/2.8. My birthday is in January. I'm hoping it comes off back order by then.

i cant afford the 70-200mm

thats why this thread is about deciding between a 18-200 and a 80-200

 

[JIP]

This is a silly choice. If you can afford the 80-200 2.8 and buy an 18-200 you are crazy. The 80-200 is an excellent and sharp lens.

 

[den9]

the thing is, i dont shoot sports too often, and i dont know if id lug this thing around to social events. i think i got myself backwords and i need a good wide angle, but not sure what to choose, something under 900 bucks

 

[dpolston]

I am just guessing here but I would think the 18-200 would be less crisp because of the very wide range.

I personally shoot 2 lenses mainly an 18-135 and the 70-200 2.8 on my d200. I would not try to get the one lens does all lens. I bought a slingbag and shoot them both. I'd consider the 70-200 though. But is eyou want a good mid range lens, the 18-135 is less than 300.00

 

[Sideburns]

i really want the 80-200 but i dont know how often id use it, or carry it around.
i thought the 18-200 would be nice, say im taking a wide angle shot of the city and i see something cool happening far away, i could zoom in real fast, or if im in the woods takin a pictures of the lake and out of no where i seen a hawk diving down for lunch.

most of my shots are scenic, but i go to race tracks once in a while, and sometimes i take pictures of animals. are there any other uses for a 80-200?

The 80-200 is not THAT limiting. It's a decent walk around lens when you're going to be in the woods, or if you're going to an "event" where you aren't right next to it. I use my 70-200 for a LOT of my photos.

If I had the option, I'd personally want an 18-200 lens...it'd be great for every day walking around, and some lightweight travelling... It gets relatively short so it doesn't take up as much room as my honkin L.

 

[JIP]

Well I guess it depends on your budget. If you are talking Nikon and their 18-200 VR for $700 you have a few options. For a little more this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/277227-USA/Nikon_2144_12_24mm_f_4G_ED_IF_DX.html might work and it a nice wide lens much better than any 18-200.

 

[den9]

i was lookin at that 12-24mm
if i really wanted it i could get it, but its gonna be a present from my dad, and i feel bad. i might get the tokina 12-24, i hear its almost as good.

i was also thinking just skip out on the lenses, my 18-70 suits me well.

im very indecisive and it really bothers me lol.

 

[JerryPH]

Bah, I just ordered my 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR...

... and my 18-200 didn't explode and still takes darn nice pics. :lmao: Hopefully it will make it here before Christmas, but if it doesn't, I still will have the 18-200 and Sigma 18-50 HSM to serve me well enough for the holidays!

 

[johnmh]

Tokina 12-24 is fine (IMO) and half the cost of the Nikon.

The 18-200 is a great walk-around lens but it has issues. Depends on how demanding you are. It IS far more flexible (and easier to carry) than the 80-200. It's the lens of choice for my wife (and she's the Fine Arts degree/photographer)

The 80-200 is less expensive and somewhat smaller than the 70-200. Comparable quality and speed without the VR. But if $ isn't a big consideration then there's no comparison (again IMO) - the 70-200 VR is an amazing lens. But neither is a 'walk-around' in the sense that the 18-200 is.

THere may be an alternative for you - I've gotten some GREAT shots with the non-VR 70-300 - which is NOT all that expensive. Quite inexpensive actually. The VR version is cheaper than the 18-200 VR and produces decent shots as well - better than the 18-200 IMO.

If you want something with reach, a 70-300 might be a nice interim purchase that works with what you have. If you're focused on sharpness, speed and quality then you're into more $$ and the 80-200 or 70-200 VR.....

trade-offs, trade-offs.......

 

[JIP]

I think the 18-70 is a fine walking around lens keep it and use the 70-200 for fine images.

 

[den9]

i might get the 12-24 since i do alot of landscape photos


or the 80-200 since i take car and animal pictures rarely

now i gotta decide what id use more.