much need for nikon 18-55mm VR?

AHarvey

AHarvey

AHarvey

Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
10,085
Location
Stoke area
Hi,

Currently looking at getting a XX-200mm lens for my D60.

I'd love the Nikon 70-200mm AF-S f/2.8 VR IF-ED but at £1600 they are far too pricey for me.

That leaves the following 2 lenses:

Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G Dx VR Lens - £549
Nikon 55-200mm f/4.-5.6 AFS DX VR Lens - £229

The 18-200 is still a little too pricey but I have the 18-55mm VR Kit lens and was wondering if a) This lens will totally replace the kit lense and b) if it does, is there much of a market for kit lenses so I can sell it on and recoup some of the costs?
 
Not looked at the 70-300mm?
I'm in the same situation, been looking around, and my friend whos been into this for years said he'd get a 70-300 next.
I think the 18-200, would completely replace your 18-55, unless you wanted a smaller lens for some reason on the odd moment.
I'd look up some reviews of the 18-200 and the 55-200, and look into the sharpness of them, to make sure people are recommending them :)
 
AHarvey said:
Hi,

Currently looking at getting a XX-200mm lens for my D60.

I'd love the Nikon 70-200mm AF-S f/2.8 VR IF-ED but at £1600 they are far too pricey for me.

That leaves the following 2 lenses:

Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G Dx VR Lens - £549
Nikon 55-200mm f/4.-5.6 AFS DX VR Lens - £229

The 18-200 is still a little too pricey but I have the 18-55mm VR Kit lens and was wondering if a) This lens will totally replace the kit lense and b) if it does, is there much of a market for kit lenses so I can sell it on and recoup some of the costs?
Click to expand...

The 18-55 + 55-200 will give better quality than the 18-200, And is significantly cheaper. The 18-55 wont fetch much 2nd hand, oyu are best keeping it for a lightweight cheap general walkabout lens you don't care about, even if you buy the 18-200.

The alternative to the 55-200 is the 70-300 VR, more expensive but better quality and more reach.
 
the xx-200 lens is to be used at weddings for candid shots of guest etc, I was worried something like xx-300mm would make me stand out a little more.

Thanks for the info, I am off to read the links you've posted :D
 
The 70-300 wouldn't be THAT big, the 70-200 VR lens is huge due to the 2.8 aperture but the 70-300 would be relatively compact. Go for that, it's one of the best of the budget-ish lenses.
 
Sol said:
The 70-300 wouldn't be THAT big, the 70-200 VR lens is huge due to the 2.8 aperture but the 70-300 would be relatively compact. Go for that, it's one of the best of the budget-ish lenses.
Click to expand...

You know photography is an expensive hobby when a £400 lens is classed as "budget-ish" :D.

Ive been looking at this lens myself and also something to fill the 18-70 range. I'll probably sell my 18-135 kit lens and a 55-200 Nikon lens my dad got me and buy the 70-300 and something else.
 
all i'd add is that if you're doing low light shots (and i'm talking indoor shots without a flash in daylight here) a longer lens will require a faster shutter to avoid blur, and the faster shutter will require a larger aperture to keep the levels of light high enough.

So a 300mm whilst having more reach, if its a small aperture will require a slower shutter which may introduce shake.

I only mention as a thought and if i could justify it i'd be buying the fastest lens i could afford with "enough" reach
 
Pug said:
So a 300mm whilst having more reach, if its a small aperture will require a slower shutter which may introduce shake.

I only mention as a thought and if i could justify it i'd be buying the fastest lens i could afford with "enough" reach
Click to expand...

It's 5.6 on the long end, just like the other lenses he's looking at, and reaches 5.6 at a later point than the other lenses he's looking at.
 
robmiller said:
It's 5.6 on the long end, just like the other lenses he's looking at, and reaches 5.6 at a later point than the other lenses he's looking at.
Click to expand...

both valid points (skim read the 1st post and saw f2.8 mentioned)
 
I am getting the 50mm 1.8 for the indoor shots, thinking of the 200mm for outdoor mostly with the occasional indoor shots.
 
Why not look at third party lenses? A friend of mine is doing photo-journalism down in London and highly recomends the sigma 70-200 f2.8 mkII.

At ~£650 new its VERY expensive and out of budget, but the results are worth it imo because its built VERY well and has the constant f2.8 from 70-200mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twilton/

The 2nd and 3rd shots were both taken with it, and I really like the quality.

Its certainly right up there with my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L [Non IS]
 
I've had a few of the lens talked about, the 18-200mm was my first ever lens on my D200 and was great for what I wanted at the time which was a walk about lens as I was still learning. Then when I got my D300 I sold it and went for a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-300mm, the 70-300mm is a cracking lens for the money but I wanted some fast glass so sold it and went for a 80-200mm f2.8 which was very fast and sharp. Then I was offered a 70-200mm f.28 VR for a knock down price which was to hard to refuse so I moved my 80-200mm on. Since I moved onto my D3 I seem to be using primes more and use my feet for the zooming if that makes sence so this is also a option.

So I would say have a look at the 80-200mm AF you might get one for £450-500 if you look hard but Nikon glass has gone through the roof of late so there are not many bargains about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom