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.
Nikon lenses
- Thread starter camexp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had the latter combo before I purchased the 18-200. The 18-70 is a VERY nice lens (within the context of consumer lenses, obviously). One nice thing about it is the max aperture - at the widest end it's f/4.5. That's not super fast; but it's significantly better than most.
The 70-300G is also quite nice, but the lack of VR definitely comes into play for some shots over much of its useful range. I wish the VR version had been around when I was making my purchasing decisions - VR at the longer end was the main reason I dumped those two lenses and bought the 18-200.
For the 18-70 I don't think the lack of VR is a significant issue, personally.
Ah yes, that 18-70. It's a great lens, and missing VR is not an issue at all (though I do occasionally miss the extra f/ stops).
I doubt you will need a 200mm lens. 300mm is so long I'd call it a "specialty lens". I have the 18-70 and it covers 80% of what I shoot. My second most used lens is my 50mm f/1.4 I also have the 85mm f/1.8 but it is a bit to long to use indoors, good for outdoor people shots.
One of the nice things about the 18-70 is that is has a non-rotating filter ring that makes pol. filters easy to use even with a lens hood. The 18-17 also has full time manual focus over ride.
The main limitation of the "kit lenses" is that they are all f/5.6 (except the 18-70 which is only 1/2 stop faster) getting a 50mm will let you have one faster lens.
You could go with one of the f/2.8 zooms but they are expensive. One thing, a used 80-200 f/2.8 sells for as little as $400 and is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. If you do need a long lens look at that one.
I can't see much use for VR on a shorter lens. You can hand hold a 55mm at 1/60th second. So with VR you could shoth 1/15th but why yo'd just get a blur due to subject moton. VR can freeze the subject.
Did you say "nature" then get a tripod.
There are many, many times when you need 300mm on a sports field or out shooting "nature". Keep in mind that 200mm "FX" lenses will crop 1.5x (to 300mm) on a digital body (exception: D3).
The 80-200 is a good lens, but I have two problems with it:
It's relatively slow focusing (sports, sports, sports)
It's not $400. (here, here or here)
Agreed. Completely.
The 18-200 is a great lense. You can easily replace two to four lenses with it. It costs a bit more but look how many lenses you will replace. Also, think of how much less equipment you have to lug around. You won't replace an ultra wide angle lense or a very long lense with it but it will cover a lot of situations.
Before you buy try to handle whatever you are considering. Also, you could look for a dealer who rents out equipment and has the knowhow to guide you.
The AF speed crucially depends on the model. The push-pull zoom's AF is slow (I have this one), but the IQ is superb. Later models (especially those with AF-S have a much faster AF).
I think Chris A was referring to the used market. Here is an overview of all 80-200 AF zooms Nikon has built to date.
If you have the budget an 18-200mm VR is the best for you as you'll never "miss the shot" while changing lens. Plus, less chance of sensor dust etc.
Actually I mis-spoke slightly. I had the ED version of the 70-300, which is a better lens than the 70-300G (and goes for $200 more). The consensus is you'll likely be disappointed with the non-ED "G" version of the 70-300.
The VR version also uses the ED glass.
The VR version also uses the ED glass.
18-200 VR is a nice "all-around lens"
I like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 myself for a nice budget lens that delivers.
I like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 myself for a nice budget lens that delivers.
It never fails to amaze me how some folks imagine that their particular needs in photography somehow are normative for all people.
Who says there's no use to VR on a shorter lens? I happen to do a lot of photography in museums - and I don't think this is a particularly rare activity... tourists all over the world do it. Museums often have these limitations: spaces too small for long lenses, low light, flash and tripod use is banned. I'd like to know why under those circumstances having VR is not useful? I have a Nikon D300 and I dearly wish I had wide VR lenses. None of the primes, Nikon or third party, obviously, are VR (50/1.4, 35/2, 30/1.4, 28/1.4). Meanwhile the 17-55/2.8 is a very nice zoom, but again, no VR. And is VR somehow impossible or not useful at that focal length? Actually there is proof of the opposite - Canon makes a 17-55/2.8 IS, and it is an excellent lens indeed... in fact by quality of glass or IQ it is if anything slightly superior to the already fantastic IQ of the Nikon 17-55/2.8 - and yet, Canon manages to put IS there. That's proof right there, if any was needed that not only is it possible, but it doesn't hurt the IQ or raise the price (in fact the Canon lens is about $150 cheaper). I'm happy with Nikon on the whole, but I do admit, it would be fantastic if Nikon users had the same broad choices in lenses that Canon users enjoy. Not to mention, there are many people out there, who for whatever reason (age, disease etc.) don't have super-steady hands and who would truly benefit from VR at every focal length... are we so selfish now that we won't think of anyone else's needs except our own at any particular moment in time?
So let's drop this nonsense about how there's no need for VR on short lenses. Maybe not to you, but your needs don't define everybody's needs - thanks for keeping that in mind.
Hmm... when I read the three different statements (including mine) that you seem to take exception to, it seems pretty obvious from the context that in each we're referring to our own experiences. So rather than make your own sweeping statements - and you did turn around and do exactly that - why not just say "in MY case VR on a short lens would be a godsend..."?
I'm sorry, but ChrisA is probably right here. Yes, many people have been to a museum and taken some photos, but not many people do it often. Not at all. You're probably going to be alone here. By your argument, VR should be on every Nikon camera lens because there may be some chance that someone in the world is upset because they'd be better off having VR.
ChrisA made a broad statement, but that statement is probably true for the large majority.
BS. Can't you read? I specifically quoted the ChrisA statement for context, and it is abundantly clear that it is not "pretty obvious that we're referring to our own experiences" - the operative part is right here, and I'll emphasize it for you:
Did you say "nature" then get a tripod.
Now, if he was just speaking for himself, he wouldn't have used that language - it is abundantly clear that he thinks this applies to anybody - note the generic "you", not himself ("I", "me"). The context conclusively shows that my interpretation is the correct one. Reading comprehension 101.
Further, I didn't say VR would be useful to all - or to "you". I said it would be useful - that allows everyone in who needs it but does not forcibly bring in those who don't need it. Unlike saying "it is not useful" which excludes EVERYBODY. So those are not equivalent statements. Reading comprehension 101.
One additional technical point: the presence of VR on a lens does not COMPEL you to use it - if you have no use for it, you don't have to turn it on, but for those who find use for it, it's there. Meanwhile, NOT having it excludes those who do need it. So, one situation is more inclusive than the other. And Canon does it with IS for LESS money than Nikon without VR.
I fundamentally disagree with that supposition: photography in museums is certainly more popular in sheer numbers than tons of more specialized photography (like, f.ex. fashion). Have you travelled a lot? I just came back from Italy, and let me tell you - gazillions of people snapped shots in museums. In fact, I'd say it's one of the bigger targets of photography needs - tourists in museums.
And no need to equip every lens with VR - why not have VR and non-VR versions of a lens? Besides which, we are discussing needs - undeniably such a need exists. Is it large enough to be economically viable? Well, why not look around... hey, there it is, Canon thinks so: they do have IS on their 17-55, and it is a very popular lens indeed... that tells me that I'm not some wild-eyed eccentric. QED.
Hey now, let's cool our jets…
Can we agree on the following?
a) VR can be useful on short lenses, although the advantages are limited to a smaller group than those who benefit from telephoto VR
b) There is a reasonable contingent of tourists who use their cameras to take pictures in museums.
c) We'll stop arguing about syntax and grammatical structure
Can we agree on the following?
a) VR can be useful on short lenses, although the advantages are limited to a smaller group than those who benefit from telephoto VR
b) There is a reasonable contingent of tourists who use their cameras to take pictures in museums.
c) We'll stop arguing about syntax and grammatical structure