Need help making lens choice !

sunny2004

Ok, I have a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, its given up the ghost...

So I want to replace it but am now thinking about getting the
Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR II Lens

Now the 3.5- 5.6 are the same on both lenses but I am wondering if they both ACT the same in low light ? I was happy with the 18-105 preformance, but would not mind the extra reach of the 18-200, but only if it handled the same regarding low light ??

I suppose I am asking are these the same lenses, with one with longer focal length ?

Any ideas ?

FoxT

Yes, they will essentially be the same. Suppose you have a 50mm lens set at f/3.5, and a 150mm lens at f/3.5 - in any given lighting situation, both will require the same shutter speed. That is one reason why aperture numbers, though odd, are handy.

In fact, I expect that the 18-200 will let in some more light at 105mm, compared to the 18-105.

However , I have used neither - suggest you check the reviews and/or try before you buy.

-FoxT

Thecageyone

Aye, I'd guess same, that the 18-200 will have a wider aperture at 105mm as all the glass is not fully pushed. You'll probably get f/4.5 - 5 at 105mm, could be wrong on that though. Maybe someone who owns one can check for you.

VR II is apparently a bit better too:

1. The Nikon VR zooming mechanism “creeps” while the VR II had improved on this. The Nikon VR II does not get out of zooming position easily by creeping.

2. The Nikon VR has 3 stops compensation while the VR II has 4 stops.

3. VR is the earlier implementation of Nikon’s vibration reduction technology and it is later improved by the release of VR II.

4. The VR II has better image quality than the earlier Nikon VR.

5. VR II is naturally more expensive than the VR.

6. Image stabilization is better and greater in VR II than in the original VR.



Read more: Difference Between Nikon VR and VR II | Difference Between | Nikon VR vs VR II http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-nikon-vr-and-vr-ii/#ixzz1FTyFCHEm

sunny2004

Big thank you guys... NOW THE WAIT FOR SOMEONE USING THE 18-200

Hugh_C

I've experience with the 1st version of the 18-200 the VR 1 or whatever it's called. Very nice walkaround lens however not very good at extremes of length (either at the wide end or the telephoto end). In fairness, it's asking a lot for a lens to be good over this entire range.

sunny2004

Hugh_C wrote: »

I've experience with the 1st version of the 18-200 the VR 1 or whatever it's called. Very nice walkaround lens however not very good at extremes of length (either at the wide end or the telephoto end). In fairness, it's asking a lot for a lens to be good over this entire range.

humm, I can only judge it on what I get from the 18-105, maybe I should consider another zoom option then.. Questions, questions, sorry guys ..

Thecageyone

I don't really like these all-in-one lenses either. They're grand for multi-purpose use, some people just don't like changing lenses on the go. I don't mind it. I'd prefer the better IQ you get with splitting focal lengths.

For example, the 18-55 VR and 55-200VR combo is supposedly better than an all in one 18-200VR. As they don't have so much work to do individually.

sunny2004

Thecageyone wrote: »

I don't really like these all-in-one lenses either. They're grand for multi-purpose use, some people just don't like changing lenses on the go. I don't mind it. I'd prefer the better IQ you get with splitting focal lengths.

For example, the 18-55 VR and 55-200VR combo is supposedly better than an all in one 18-200VR. As they don't have so much work to do individually.

MY problem is I am use to the "spread" of the 18-105, so I dont want to have a smaller zoom like the 18-55 on the body, but I get what you are saying..

Thecageyone

Being used to a broad range is one thing, but wouldn't you rather have the better IQ?

For the price of the 18-200 VR II you could have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 [I have one, and it's miles better than a kit lens] or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, and the 55-200 VR, and still have a good chunk of change.

sunny2004

Thinking...

dakar

It's fine.

Not bad, but not special. I was convinced when I bought it that it was every lens I'd ever need. But it's not, I actually found the huge zoom range nearly too much to wrap my head around, and as Hugh said, it's not great at either end of it's range.

In the event I rarely used it, but I loaned it to my Dad when he was going on a trip to NYC a couple of years ago and I haven't seen it since. Turns out it's every lens he ever needs.

Would I recommend one? If you buy into the idea of one lens to rule them all, this one does a lot of what most people who aren't that fussy might want from one.

But, but, but Jack of all trades, master of none....

FoxT

I expect it would be a very handy lens to use if travelling, especially to sunnier locations! Less weight/stuff to pack/ etc.

I am a canon user myself but recently upgraded from a (very good) 70-300 f4-5.6 to a 70-200 f/2.8, just to get a bit more shutter speed. My point - If I was living in California I wouldnt have done it!

Thecageyone

If they could somehow squeeze some nice macro capabilities into those lenses they would be the perfect summer zoom. 1:2 would even do. Might even buy one myself in that case. Don't ask for much do I?

CabanSail

I have the 18-200 VR lens, as opposed to the VRII.

I bought this to replace my Kit 18-70 lens when I wore it out. If I were to head out on a trip, with only one lens, then this would be it. It covers so many possibilities in one package. Having said that I don't use it very much now that I have a selection of glass as I try to pick the best suited lens for what I am going to shoot.

If you were happy with the 18-105 Kit lens then I think you will enjoy this lens too. It is very versatile but also full of compromises. It will be as bright at 18mm as your old lens, and brighter at 105mm. If you are interested in the images and flexibility you will really like it but it will never satisfy the pixel peepers. For the optical range they are covering they do a great job.

Thecageyone

Better overall IQ has nothing to do with pixel peeping. I hate that too, but when we're talking IQ here it's the obvious that can be seen at a glance. Images from these lenses can suffer softness at the longer end, and vignetting and distortion at the wider end. I'm not sure how this one is with all that, and I'm sure it's fine in between. If you're going to shoot a lot at 200mm say, then a simple 70-300 @ 200mm will be sharper.

sunny2004

Ken rockwell sings the praises of the 18-200 but then again he thinks the 18-300 is fantastic...

I am now looking at the 24-120
http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=894

Not sure if its worth the extra over the original lens 18 -105
http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=4858

Thecageyone

If KR was anything to go by, he hates that 24-120.

Don't simplyelectronics ship from Hong Kong? you gotta watch that for customs and excise charges. They're not as cheap as you might think.

sunny2004

I was just using the links to show the lenses and get feeback as to if the 200+ differece was worth it ?

woody_2000

Thecageyone wrote: »

Don't simplyelectronics ship from Hong Kong? you gotta watch that for customs and excise charges. They're not as cheap as you might think.

Simply Electronics ship into Ireland from the UK (Reading, IIRC), so there should be no hidden VAT or other charges...

It would be better to contact them with any questions you may have if considering ordering, regarding warranties, etc. They are known to supply "grey imports" (Hong Kong sourced?), which they will only themselves provide a warranty for - rather than a regular manufacturer's warranty... They do also, apparently, supply genuine UK/Ireland distributed products - which would have a manufacturer's warranty...

They do apparently have a Hong Kong connection, but I don't know what it is...

They do take their time to ship, though - and may take a week, or so, before even shipping an order from the UK...

They are a good price reference, for comparison -- but I would consider Amazon, or such, first - if the price is in any way comparable...

I have purchased from them once (unexpectedly received a grey import), but, so far, it's worked out ok...

sunny2004

Thank you, my main question now is are the two lenses or more importantly the 200 euros difference, justifiable, I mentioned the lenses above.. decisions decisions..

woody_2000

Reviews to consider:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/410-nikkor_18105_3556vr

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/244-nikkor-af-s-24-120mm-f35-56g-if-ed-vr-review--lab-test-report?start=1

I would possibly imagine, on balance, the cheaper of the two lenses you mention (18-105) might be ok - and possibly a better value, depending on your purposes...

I have no personal experience of either of these two lenses, btw...

Thecageyone

They don't fare too well on optical quality or mechanical build. The 18-200 VR II scores only 2.5/5 for optical:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=2

I didn't read the review but I'm guessing this is because of the issues at both the wide and longer ends.

Compare those to the 55-200vr:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report?start=2

Scores are much more respectable.

And the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I suggested to get along with:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=2

Both get 5 stars for overall performance/value for money.