Nikon help: buy a 18-200mm or 70-300mm?
Tweet

**yinzer_99** · 12-23-2007 02:26 AM

I spent a long time with my film SLR using a xx-200mm lens. Now I'm moving to DSLR and switching brands so I have the chance to rebuild my lens collection. I'm thinking about 2 different Nikon lenses:

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor D 18-200 mm f/3.5 - 5.6G DX ED IF VR

In the past I tended to use the long lens outside for action shots (e.g., cars driving, animals in the woods, and sports like snow/water skiing). I remember feeling frustrated I couldn't get the shot tighter. On the flip side going with a 70-300mm feels like I will end up switching lenses all the time and it is a slower lens.

Any thoughts on which way I should go? Is there another lens I should be thinking about?

**Markitos** · 12-23-2007 06:38 AM

I have the VR version of the 70-300 and would highly recommend that as a dedicated tele. It's a good, sharp lens and the VR really helps with slower shutter speeds (but doesn't help, obviously, with a moving subject).

My dad has the 18-200 and he really likes it as his do-everything travel lens. I think it's pretty much on his camera most of the time. It's very versatile.

Neither lens is very fast. Both have VR. Both are within $200 of each other (maybe less).

It comes down to optical quality, duplicated range, and extra reach. I wanted the extra reach and b/c I don't shoot tele hardly at all, didn't want the 18-200 because I'd effectively be carring around an extra 100mm or more of range that I didn't really need. For MY purposes, when I need a tele, I need a tele, and I don't do much switching of lenses.

Of course, your decision has nothing to do with what I do... so think about what YOU do, and you may find that one is clearly better suited than the other. They are both good lenses.

If it means anything, I am considering dumping the 70-300 for a faster 70-200 2.8 lens. I WILL give up 100mm of range for a faster max. aperture to better stop action. Something else to think about....

**kensington** · 12-23-2007 09:19 AM

I agree, speed is key to me. I also agree, when shooting tele I am pretty much shooting tele, no need to switch back and forth too often.

I pretty much shoot my kids and go with a 2 lens setup, the 17-35 2.8 when shooting the kids close up or the 80-200 2.8 (which I am hoping to upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 this week) when shooting action.

I also keep the 50 1.4 in my bag because it is so small and even more awesome.

**Markitos** · 12-23-2007 10:52 AM

Kensington, tell me more about your 80-200... is it the newest, just before the 70-200 VR, or is it older? I may be interested if it's still for sale.

**yinzer_99** · 12-23-2007 11:00 AM

Thanks for the advice. It sounds like both will work well and I just have to make a decision between speed and length. I guess I'll just pick one, use it for a while, and swap if it is frustrating.

**yinzer_99** · 12-23-2007 11:05 AM

One other question - I tried to read all the stickies I could find.

<----- I still have the RTFM tag.

Is that based on post count or did I miss an important sticky somewhere?

**Markitos** · 12-23-2007 11:38 AM

It's based on post count (<10, I think)

**Stime187** · 12-23-2007 11:40 AM

Yeah, from what I know (Canon guy) the lenses are fairly similar and both are slow. Just think about what you prefer shooting and go with that lens based on length. Personally, I'd get the 18-200 because I don't ever shoot anything past 200mm, but again, that's what I would do.

Originally Posted by yinzer_99

One other question - I tried to read all the stickies I could find.

<----- I still have the RTFM tag.

Is that based on post count or did I miss an important sticky somewhere?

I believe its 10 or so posts. It took me forever to figure out what the hell RTFM meant.

- Scott

EDIT: I'm pretty sure Mark follows me around, checks what thread I'm posting in, the makes as short a reply possible to cut in front of me.

**Markitos** · 12-23-2007 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stime187

Yeah, from what I know (Canon guy) the lenses are fairly similar and both are slow. Just think about what you prefer shooting and go with that lens based on length. Personally, I'd get the 18-200 because I don't ever shoot anything past 200mm, but again, that's what I would do.

I believe its 10 or so posts. It took me forever to figure out what the hell RTFM meant.

- Scott

EDIT: I'm pretty sure Mark follows me around, checks what thread I'm posting in, the makes as short a reply possible to cut in front of me.

LOLZ

You figured me out!!!

**yinzer_99** · 01-02-2008 04:47 PM

I ended up going with the 70-300 because I got a great deal. So far so good. It is pretty much worthless inside without a flash but I've been happy outside. We'll see how long I stick with it. Here is a sample shot from walking in the woods.

**Markitos** · 01-03-2008 12:04 AM

Nice pickup--I was trying to steer you towards the 70-300 without overtly giving you my opinion.

This was also with a 70-300 (but the VR version)--I am just amazed at the detail and contrast (tooting the lenses horn, not my own):

**yinzer_99** · 01-03-2008 04:48 PM

I like that a ton. Were you at the zoo or lucky enough to see one in the wild?

(Also, I'm a dolt and didn't think to check the for sale section earlier. My apologies.)

**Markitos** · 01-03-2008 06:23 PM

Zoo. And thank you.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Nikon help: buy a 18-200mm or 70-300mm?
Tweet

Posting Permissions