18-200 VR or 70-200VR?

[MrCake]

Im looking to expand my lens collection this year and spend a lot of my time behind the camera at motorsport events. I already use my Nikon 18-70, Sigma 70-300 and Bigma but would like to change the 70-300 for something a lot sharper and quicker.

Looking at last years pictures I can see that as I spend a lot of time at Brands, I rarely use the full reach of the 70-300 and have the Bigma if I do need to stretch so am looking at 200mm top end.

My choices are either the new 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR or the 70-200 2.8 VR. My wallet says go for the 18-200 as its about half the price but the 70-200 seems to get brilliant reviews. Is the wider 2.8 worth double the price of the other lens?

Im have also been roped in to shooting my sisters wedding in April so would possibly use either lens then as she hates cameras and asked if I could shoot from further away so it didnt bother her so much

 

[Braeden]

...but would like to change the 70-300 for something a lot sharper and quicker.

My choices are either the new 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR or the 70-200 2.8 VR.

the 18-200 will be no faster than the sigma at the long focal lengths (and you did say you wanted "quicker") so even though your wallet likes the price, quality wise I would say go for the 70-200 f/2.8 instead.

 

[jhmaeng]

Sigma 18-200: f/3.5-6.3, Non AF-S
Nikon 18-200: f/3.5-5.6, AF-S, VR

Through the use of AF-S, the Nikon version should be much quicker to focus than the Sigma. Also, the VR should help you get a sharp picture during darker conditions (but naturally won't help with motion blur). Finally, plenty of people on other forums mentioned they are very happy with the image quality from the Nikon 18-200, which can't be said for the Sigma version.

Sure, it's much, much darker than the f/2.8 70-200, but as the OP mentioned it's half the price and also smaller/lighter. If you don't have a big need to freeze motion during lower light (in which case f/2.8 is the only way), I would vote for the convenience of 18-200 and lower cost personally.

 

[Joe T]

Sigma 18-200: f/3.5-6.3, Non AF-S
Nikon 18-200: f/3.5-5.6, AF-S, VR

.

I think Braeden was talking about the OPs Bigma.

I'd save and get the 70-200. And then save a bit more and get a 1.4 or 1.7 tc.

You can also consider the 80-200 2.8. This lens is nearer the price of the 18-200, and is reputed to have superior optics to the 70-200 VR. There are versions with AF-S, but these arent made anymore. The 80-200 is still used by most pros in preference to the 70-200 VR.

I think you would be disappointed with the 18-200. It would be useful however if you wanted just one lens on your camera all day.

As you are looking for a new lens for motorsport, I might as well tell you what I use for that subject. Ive got a Sigma 120-300 2.8 (£1150 from HK - similar price to 70-200 VR). Its a damn heavy lens (quite a lot heaveir than your Bigma), but shoots pretty good pics. I have only used it once so far as the season hasnt yet started, but the results were good. Worth considering imo.

HTH

 

[MrCake]

Thanks for all the input guys.

Thanks for the 80-200 suggestion JoeT, I will look into that. I just assumed it was out dated but looking around I do like the price it commands.

Theres a similar thread I found on the 18-200 or 70-200 debate on Nikonians and they say that you generally cant compare the 2 lenses as thats like asking which is better, a ferrari or a corsa.

Cant wait for this years motorsport to kick off!