Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
18-135mm vs. 18-200mm (Nikon) - worth the difference?
- Thread starter Shacklebolt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, made a mistake. I meant Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8. Sigma just updated this lens today.
Just go to B&H website and search yourself.
Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 (larger)
Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8 lens. Noticeably smaller because it's not made for full frame DSLRs like the D3. Same advantage as 70-200 mm f/2.8 models, meaning you can shoot in 4x less light than you could using an 18-200 mm, while still giving sharper photos.
Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR
Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8
Just go to B&H website and search yourself.
Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 (larger)
Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8 lens. Noticeably smaller because it's not made for full frame DSLRs like the D3. Same advantage as 70-200 mm f/2.8 models, meaning you can shoot in 4x less light than you could using an 18-200 mm, while still giving sharper photos.
Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR
Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8
This photographer doesn't touch anything but Nikon glass. I realize there are plenty of folks out there happy with Sigma glass, but I've never tested something that works as well as Nikon-branded glass.
Yes, and the 70-200 is about $1600? The 80-200 is about $900? Of course they look (and work) great; They're pro lenses!
Sure; you get "4x less light" for the same shutter speed, however:
1) Every time you want to go wide you're swapping glass. PITA!!
2) You need to pay for the sherpa to haul them around for you.
3) Did I mention they are expensive?
Take it from me, I own the 80-200 as well as the 18-200. I can tell you where my 18-200 is (on my camera) as well as my 80-200 (in the bottom of my camera bag.)
In the end, obviously, you're the one who's going to be lugging these lenses around. The 70-200 has VR, so the "it's 4x as fast as the 18-200" is valid there - but the 80-200 doesn't have VR, so how much of an advantage that one has will be more situational. VR adds the equivalent of 2 to 4 stops, depending on who you ask (and the situation you're in). It doesn't freeze fast movement though.
Other information you should think about:
The 8.5 inch long, 3.2 pound 70-200 f/2.8 has a minimum focusing distance of 5 feet. The 7.6 inch long, 2.8 pound 80-200 has a minimum focusing distance of almost 6 feet.
The 3.8 inch long, 1.2 pound 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 has a minimum focusing distance of 15-18 inches (depending on the focal length).
Other information you should think about:
The 8.5 inch long, 3.2 pound 70-200 f/2.8 has a minimum focusing distance of 5 feet. The 7.6 inch long, 2.8 pound 80-200 has a minimum focusing distance of almost 6 feet.
The 3.8 inch long, 1.2 pound 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 has a minimum focusing distance of 15-18 inches (depending on the focal length).
Hell yes! So sharp you'll cut yourself just flipping through the thumbnails on your screen
Westside Guy is right about the size and weight. Unfortunately, that's photography for you. You need to pay a lot more, and carry a lot more weight, just to get a slightly better performance, slightly more reach, etc.
To be fair though, I don't find the 70-200 mm heavy. It's not light, but I'm a healthy, male, 27 year old uni student who isn't out of shape. I can hold that lens for ages.
1) He's going to shoot concerts for a magazine. A 70-200 mm focal length is a good range, although something that can do 35-50 mm would also be good if he's standing in front of the stage. This is important because the venues he'll be shooting at are likely small to mid-sized. Actually, a 105 mm f/2 would be excellent as well for shots that are somewhat far away.
2. Swapping lenses isn't a big deal. A band's appearance doesn't really change much between songs.
3. Yes, the Nikon 80-200 mm is expensive.....around $850-900.
Sigma 70-200 mm is around $850-900.
Sigma 50-150 mm is around $650.
The Nikon 18-200 mm is also expensive, with a pricetag of around $750. Sound much cheaper to you?
Like you said, the Nikon 80-200 mm works great, as it is "pro glass." Why pay almost the same amount for something that won't be good enough for the job? If it doesn't do the job, then he just threw away money. Don't get me wrong. I know some people aren't fans of the 18-200 mm, but I am a fan. However, I wouldn't recommend it for what he shoots. I'd recommend it for general photography, maybe even an outdoor wedding. However, for bands?
The Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8 may be even better than the 70-200 mm f/2.8 for shooting bands because it goes as "wide" as 50 mm. That's good. The 70-200 mm is needed if you're far away, but that usually happens at large venues for large bands (that his small magazine will probably not attend for the foreseeable future). At that point, the magazine can probably afford to buy him a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens if he needs a bit more reach.
To be fair though, I don't find the 70-200 mm heavy. It's not light, but I'm a healthy, male, 27 year old uni student who isn't out of shape. I can hold that lens for ages.
Yes, and the 70-200 is about $1600? The 80-200 is about $900? Of course they look (and work) great; They're pro lenses!
Sure; you get "4x less light" for the same shutter speed, however:
1) Every time you want to go wide you're swapping glass. PITA!!
2) You need to pay for the sherpa to haul them around for you.
3) Did I mention they are expensive?
1) He's going to shoot concerts for a magazine. A 70-200 mm focal length is a good range, although something that can do 35-50 mm would also be good if he's standing in front of the stage. This is important because the venues he'll be shooting at are likely small to mid-sized. Actually, a 105 mm f/2 would be excellent as well for shots that are somewhat far away.
2. Swapping lenses isn't a big deal. A band's appearance doesn't really change much between songs.
3. Yes, the Nikon 80-200 mm is expensive.....around $850-900.
Sigma 70-200 mm is around $850-900.
Sigma 50-150 mm is around $650.
The Nikon 18-200 mm is also expensive, with a pricetag of around $750. Sound much cheaper to you?
Like you said, the Nikon 80-200 mm works great, as it is "pro glass." Why pay almost the same amount for something that won't be good enough for the job? If it doesn't do the job, then he just threw away money. Don't get me wrong. I know some people aren't fans of the 18-200 mm, but I am a fan. However, I wouldn't recommend it for what he shoots. I'd recommend it for general photography, maybe even an outdoor wedding. However, for bands?
The Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8 may be even better than the 70-200 mm f/2.8 for shooting bands because it goes as "wide" as 50 mm. That's good. The 70-200 mm is needed if you're far away, but that usually happens at large venues for large bands (that his small magazine will probably not attend for the foreseeable future). At that point, the magazine can probably afford to buy him a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens if he needs a bit more reach.
Welcome to photography, the body is your cheapest investment, and glass is the most important. I can't wait to get my 70-200 VR 2.8 next year. Followed by the even more expensive 24-70mm F2.8 new from Nikon. It's gonna be an expensive, but good year.
I'll also say the reason why the Canon and Nikon 70-200 offerings are SO good is they are one of the sharpest lenses you can buy period (sharper then a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4, just about everything), plus the build quality is amazing from my experience. And almost if not better than the resolution most DSLRs can provide. They are amazing. The journalist lens of choice
Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 is pretty decent also http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50150_28_nikon/index.htm
And the 70-200 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm
If I was in your shoes I'd be looking for a D80 or a used D200 (with a low actuation count) and spending what ever I could justify on the best and fastest lenses.
Don't be fooled into thinking that your images will be automatically better with a D300 than they would be with a D80 or D200. All 3 are going to be better than you ever imagined as long as you put the right glass in front of them. If you can afford the D300 and some of those pro-lenses that others have suggested then by all means get it, but just remember that it's the glass much more so than the body that will give you good results. Also it's you much more so than the glass but you knew that already.
Good luck with your choice, I'm jealous. I am getting anxious for the new Pentax cameras next month, won't be able to afford them but still feel anxious to see what they have.
SLC
Don't be fooled into thinking that your images will be automatically better with a D300 than they would be with a D80 or D200. All 3 are going to be better than you ever imagined as long as you put the right glass in front of them. If you can afford the D300 and some of those pro-lenses that others have suggested then by all means get it, but just remember that it's the glass much more so than the body that will give you good results. Also it's you much more so than the glass but you knew that already.
Good luck with your choice, I'm jealous. I am getting anxious for the new Pentax cameras next month, won't be able to afford them but still feel anxious to see what they have.
SLC
When I bought my D70 some years ago the very first lens I got with it (aside from the 18-70 kit lens) was the 70-200mm VR and I have never regretted that decision. At the time the lens and the camera both felt very heavy to me, coming from the lightweight Coolpix, but now, having moved into heavier, longer lenses I find that the 70-200mm VR is quite manageable and easy to handhold when I need to do so. I'm a petite woman and yet I can handhold a 300mm f/4 if need be and I can wrestle the 6 pound 300mm f/2.8 on to the tripod fairly comfortably.....
It would make no sense to buy the stellar D300 and then stick inexpensive or consumer lenses on it. Reiterating what has been said in this thread: yes, it makes far more sense to buy the D80 and stick some really good pro-quality glass on it. The lens more than the body is what produces a good image and beyond that it is the photographer's creative vision and technical skills which make the image truly remarkable.
Photography is not an inexpensive hobby or profession -- the gear, GOOD gear, costs plenty of money! It's not just the camera body you need to consider, it's the lenses and the support system (ie tripods, monopods, ball heads, gimbal heads) and also your computer setup for post-processing and storing all your results. Photography can also be somewhat addicting!! LOL!! Heaven knows that when I bought that first D70 and 70-200mm VR lens I really didn't anticipate that one day I'd be photographing birds and wildlife with longer, heavier, more expensive lenses and appropriate support system.....
It would make no sense to buy the stellar D300 and then stick inexpensive or consumer lenses on it. Reiterating what has been said in this thread: yes, it makes far more sense to buy the D80 and stick some really good pro-quality glass on it. The lens more than the body is what produces a good image and beyond that it is the photographer's creative vision and technical skills which make the image truly remarkable.
Photography is not an inexpensive hobby or profession -- the gear, GOOD gear, costs plenty of money! It's not just the camera body you need to consider, it's the lenses and the support system (ie tripods, monopods, ball heads, gimbal heads) and also your computer setup for post-processing and storing all your results. Photography can also be somewhat addicting!! LOL!! Heaven knows that when I bought that first D70 and 70-200mm VR lens I really didn't anticipate that one day I'd be photographing birds and wildlife with longer, heavier, more expensive lenses and appropriate support system.....
Ooh, that'd be a good excuse to get the new 24-70 f/2.8 as well...
2. Swapping lenses isn't a big deal. A band's appearance doesn't really change much between songs.
Unless that band belongs to Christina Aguilera.
Taking pictures of rock bands was my favorite hobby, back in the days of film...
A couple of points:
You are going to be working with your lens wide open, because there is not enough light and the subjects are less then cooperative as they tend to move quite a bit.
Autofocus is (generally) not going to be very accurate
No matter what, zoom lenses can never EVER rival their fixed focus counterparts.
There are loads of optically fantastic Nikkor AI lenses that can be bought cheaply but they work on the D200 and up (exposure metering)
A couple of points:
You are going to be working with your lens wide open, because there is not enough light and the subjects are less then cooperative as they tend to move quite a bit.
Autofocus is (generally) not going to be very accurate
No matter what, zoom lenses can never EVER rival their fixed focus counterparts.
There are loads of optically fantastic Nikkor AI lenses that can be bought cheaply but they work on the D200 and up (exposure metering)
No Question - get the 18-200 VR
I would agreee with the others here who have posted their suggestion to go with the 18-200 VR. I purchases this glass over the summer to use with my D70 and it is a FANTASTIC lens. So good in fact that I would have to say that 90+% of the time, it is the only lens I carry.
This past Friday, I purchased the D300 as a replacement for my D70. If you can afford the $$$, go for it. It's a fantastic camera. I posted some initial thoughts on my blog (in my sig) but it's a monumental step up from the D70 (and the D80 as well I would think.)
The colors on the D300 are so much better than those on almost any other camera I have used. For a more detailed review, you can also check out the KenRockwell.com website. Ken is a longtime Nikon user and posts a very practical review of the camera.
If you can afford the D300 with the 18-200 VR, you will not regret sepending the money. Like anything else in life, you will appreciate the quality you have long after you forget about the money you spent...
One other word of advice if you get the D300 - buy a large CF card. I picked up an 8 Gig and get 750 pictures are the highest jpeg quality settings...
I would agreee with the others here who have posted their suggestion to go with the 18-200 VR. I purchases this glass over the summer to use with my D70 and it is a FANTASTIC lens. So good in fact that I would have to say that 90+% of the time, it is the only lens I carry.
This past Friday, I purchased the D300 as a replacement for my D70. If you can afford the $$$, go for it. It's a fantastic camera. I posted some initial thoughts on my blog (in my sig) but it's a monumental step up from the D70 (and the D80 as well I would think.)
The colors on the D300 are so much better than those on almost any other camera I have used. For a more detailed review, you can also check out the KenRockwell.com website. Ken is a longtime Nikon user and posts a very practical review of the camera.
If you can afford the D300 with the 18-200 VR, you will not regret sepending the money. Like anything else in life, you will appreciate the quality you have long after you forget about the money you spent...
One other word of advice if you get the D300 - buy a large CF card. I picked up an 8 Gig and get 750 pictures are the highest jpeg quality settings...
Yes, the results would be stunning with a 70-200; f/2.8 with a decent ISO you can do some amazing stuff in low-ish light. But that's a lot of lens to lug around at a show, and getting wide shots means swapping. If the photog isn't directing the action that means missing shots.
2. Swapping lenses isn't a big deal. A band's appearance doesn't really change much between songs.
It means a few seconds down time that could happen when you need to be fast and get the shot. Plus, its crowded, dirty and dark. He can't ask anyone to "stay like that for just a sec, let me change lenses."
But my point you were responding to was about having to hire a sherpa to carry around your gear. Obviously, it's a joke - my point being that if he's using the 70-200 and swapping glass, he's gonna have a pretty decent sized bag; hard to manage in crowds IMHO.
Yeah, but for that $750 you're getting wide angle too. I accept that you lose some sharpness, speed and bokeh, but if you compare by mm per dollar, it's much cheaper: 18-200 -> $4.12/mm, 70-200 -> $6.92/mm. I know it's totally asinine to compare lenses that way, but my point is that a 18mm lens is important too, and getting the 18-200 kills both of those birds.
For the low light, I'd grab a 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 for three times as much but only a bit faster). If he's front-row a 50mm would work decently, and it's tiny and light with decent optics. For $100, it solves a lot of low-light situations nicely.