24-120 lens or the 18-200 or 18-70 kit lens?

[paquito 1]

Hello!

 

Looking outside of being wet with the D200, I thank those for the advice for the Nikon 24-120 lens for a good overall topside lens. What's been intriguing me lately is the 18-200 which seem to offer a wider range - but being unfamiliar with it I could use some help. Does anyone have advice as to which of these is the better performer or quality?

 

Have a preference on performance of the two to compare and either of which sacrifices more on either end of the spectrum so much you dont like it?

 

To throw something completely different in there, would the kit lens of the 18-70 round out the wider end of things with the 24-120 companion, or would the 18-200 just better it?

 

Thank you,

 

Paquito

[sdingeldein 0]

the 18-200 is my walk around lens. I have the 18-70 for underwater use. The 18-200 has the advantage of VR as well. I sold my 24-120 after gettin the 18-200.

 

SD

[paquito 1]

SD,

 

Has the VR aspect been a noticable help to you topside? I think this would help in the long range but I'm not one to say. Have you had any issues with the ends, the 18 or the 200 side (versus the in-bewteen) that you have develop on the 18-200 lens? Sharpness, etc?

 

How would you compare the quality of the 18mm side of the 18-200 to the 18-70 lens' - any noticeable difference that you can tell?

 

Have you enjoyed the results of your 18-70 UW?

 

Paquito

[sdingeldein 0]

Yes, in lower light I think the VR is helpful. It is impressive inside where I have shot a low shutter speeds with it on and off and you can see the difference. I haven't done a detailed look at sharpness, etc at the extremes but haven't seen any problems. If you look at Thom Hogan's website he has done a look at the 18-200 with answering some of your questions.

 

I like the 18-70 underwater and it is morphing into my favorite lens. I have a 10.5 which is really neat if you can get REALLY close to bigger critters/scenes. I use the 12-24 and you still have to get fairly close. The 18-70 gives me more working room underwater, in terms of range from moderate wide angle to close up. If I had to dive with one lens, the 18-70 would be it.

 

I do like diving with the 12-24 with "Magic Filters" on a sunny day.

 

Steve

[paquito 1]

Thanks Steve,

 

I'll check out Thom's site also. I picked up Alex's filters and excited to use them in Curacao next month.

 

Thanks again for the chat and have a good one!

 

Paquito

[LChan 0]

i recently shot my cousin's graduation ceremony with the 18-200VR. What a great lens. All of the shots were offhand, no tripod. I was able to get some good images even after major magnification on my nikonview.

 

The biggest key is the VR. Without it I would probably have very few keepers because of the shake. As a carry around lens, it certainly has great range, and it is a lot lighter than carrying the 18-70 plus 80-200 2.8 I was using before. I wish the lens was faster, but then the cost and weight might be prohibitive.

[frogfish 5]

I can't compare the two lenses (18-200 and 24-120) that you are asking about, but sdingeldein's first post above seems to imply that the 24-120 is not a VR lens - it is.

 

The 24-120 is my walking around lens - it rarely leaves the camera above water except when I need to go way longer (with the 80-400 VR) or way wider (12-24 or 10.5). The VR is a big part of the reason I love this lens - I can handhold it extended at more than 100 mm focal length in low light. But the main attraction for me is that that the lens seems (to me) relatively distortion free, very sharp, with good color saturation, much superior to the older design 24-85 mm zoom that used to be my standard walking-around lens.

 

I've never used the 18-200 VR, but if it really can cover that extreme focal length range without any sacrifice of image quality, then it must be a truly amazing piece of glass.

 

Frogfish (Robert Delfs)

[paquito 1]

You All ROCK!!!

 

Well, I'm all in and about the 18-200, Thom's review helped as well. I think I'm going to like it, can't wait to see, and excited like a kid. (can you tell?) Anyway, I think Steve didnt mean to imply that his 24-120 didnt have VR, or maybe he had some version that didnt? He can answer that one.

 

Robert, you sound a little intriqued, so go for it, give the 18-200 a try, why not? Life's too short not to extend your lens once in a while.

 

Paquito

[sdingeldein 0]

My post wasn't clear. The 24-120 lens is VR.

 

It is VR I unless newer models are upgraded (which would make sense to me).

 

The 18-200 was the first VRII lens and the 105VR is the second.

 

SD

[TimG 62]

I bought the 18-200VR lens about three weeks ago to replace the Nikkor 28-200. I shoot a lot of low-light religious imagery for a stock agency. I almost never use flash - and can rarely use a tripod. I hate to think how many "well I'll give a it a try" pics I have taken at hopelessly low shutter speeds: and then had to hit the delete key. But the 18-200 really seems to be making a difference. I am gettng far more sharp images now. Works for me!

[kitgillibrand 0]

I ordered the 18-200 at the beginning of April... and it still hasn't arrived! Got a call the other day to say there was a ridiculously large shortage. I don't know about the US, but everywhere I've asked in the UK is quoting months to deliver.