My 18-200VR has arrived !!!

[dvdowns]

I was told 4 days ago that Nikon could not fill the last order and my new lens would only be here on the 20thof next month ... I got a call today to say they had botched up in a good way . Here are the first few pictures taken from my window because of all the rain outside ! no processing or anything done to the images at 18 , 50 and 200mm

[Neo]

Congrats on your new toy. You'll not be dissapointed in it! An amazing piece of kit.

[dvdowns]

Have you got one as well ?

[Neo]

Ive got the 70-200VR but was looking at the 18-200 at the same time. I decided I decided I've alread got a lens that covers 18-70 so I went for the 70-200VR which performs IMHO marginally better than the 18-200VR - nevertheless still a nice piece of kit and you'll deifnately enjoy it.

[dvdowns]

I noticed over here the 70-200VR is about 35% more expensive so I would imagine it performs better . I was thinking of also getting the sigma 70-200 f2.8 as well .

[Neo]

Your not thinking of getting the sigma in additon to your new nikon are you? If so why? I dont see the point in owning two lenses (unless there or two bodies at the same time) that cover the same range. Or did I read this wrong?

Id like to get the Nikon 300 f4 next but need to save up for that.

[Shortie]

nice new toy

Congrats

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Neo

Your not thinking of getting the sigma in additon to your new nikon are you? If so why? I dont see the point in owning two lenses (unless there or two bodies at the same time) that cover the same range.

The Sigma is a constant f/2.8 where the 18-200 is what, an f/4 variable-G? No matter the exact specs, the 18-200, while a fine lens, is a bit slower and is a variable/non-constant (IIRC).

[Neo]

Ok, the Nikon is an f3.5-5.6G which means at 18mm the max aperture is 3.5 and at 200mm its 5.6 (by max I mean the widest it will open up to.) The addition of the VR allows you to shoot (some say) up to 3 stops faster.

An example - @200mm a general rule is to shoot at a shutter speed of 1/focal length minimum - therefore you need to be shooting around 1/200 (handheld) with the addition of VR this can reduce quite dramamtically. With my 70-200VR I've managed crisp shots handheld at 200mm at shutters speeds of 1/60. Now there may be situations where a f2.8 may not give you a fast enough shutter speed to follow the 1/focal rule.

If purchasing a lens for the reason of having a constant aperture is what your after then why buy the nikon 18-200VR (£500) and then the sigma 70-200 f2.8 (£600) when you can a) either by the sigma alone if you want the constant aperture; or b) by the 70-200VR instead (£1100)

Like I said I may have mis-read the post but I dont see the point in buying the sigma.

[Jon]

Suffice it to say that just because two lenses cover the same focal length ranges doesn't mean that they can (or are meant to) do the same things. I'll give you specific examples if you'd like, but my point toward his statement has been illustrated sufficiently and I'd rather drop it at that.

[Neo]

Well I dont think it has and would like some examples to illustrate what you mean.

All Im saying is that for the same price he could have brought one lens what has the best features of both lenses without the bulk and hassle of having to swap lenses. Frankly I still dont see the point in having two lenses covering the same focal length but thats just me.

[dvdowns]

I'm in New Zealand so my replies may be a bit slow .
I got the 18-200 as a walkabout lens that covers everything I ever use . Hopefully someone will tell me that the quality at 70-200 is the same as the sigma then I will think twice about another purchase but otherwise consider this : VR means being able to take pics at slower speeds BUT , it doesn't compensate for movement of the subject . If your subject is running/flying etc. it will still be a blur while a constant f 2.8 lens will take the picture at a faster speed and will be more likely to freeze the movement of the subject .

[Neo]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

I'm in New Zealand so my replies may be a bit slow .
I got the 18-200 as a walkabout lens that covers everything I ever use . Hopefully someone will tell me that the quality at 70-200 is the same as the sigma then I will think twice about another purchase but otherwise consider this : VR means being able to take pics at slower speeds BUT , it doesn't compensate for movement of the subject . If your subject is running/flying etc. it will still be a blur while a constant f 2.8 lens will take the picture at a faster speed and will be more likely to freeze the movement of the subject .

Ok but nikons VR (at least on my lens) has an active mode which allows you to pan with subjects, the lens picks this up and compensates for that, it might not be what yor after but just so you know. Also you can increase the ISO to compensate for the lack of fast aperture. I cant vouch for how shapr the sigma is wide open but I would hazard a guess the nikon is better - you may or may not know that lenses perfomr (in terms of shaprness) at their best around f8-11 so to get the best out fo any lens you need to stop down.


This is a tough one. If your going to buy the sigma for the fast aperture I would seriously consider sending your 18-200 back and buy the 70-200 2.8 VR which will amount to the same cost as buying both lenses, you have a fast aperture (constant) and VR and a excellent lens and then just be contempt with also using your 18-70 (is this the DX? as this is also a very sharp lens)

It is a tought decision and Im not sure. Sorry

[dvdowns]

my 18-70 is the DX , the 70-200VR is nearly double the price of the 18-200 VR in NZ . I will probably hold off for a while before making any more purchases anyway , I think this lens will do most of what I need , maybe a sigma 10-20 for really wide shots !

[Neo]

10-20 sounds good, that the sort of thing Im after next. What Im saying about the 70-200 is if your gonna buy the sigma on top of your 18-200 then to total cost of those two lenses should match the cost of the VR shouldnt it? Im not sure of NZ prices.

Anyway good luck in your decision, you wont be dissapointed either way

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Neo

Well I dont think it has and would like some examples to illustrate what you mean.

Ok, take your 18-200 and replicate this image. You can't because you can't get f/2.8 at 200mm. Shooting at 200mm (or longer) compresses/flattens the features of the subject (such as noses). Shooting at f/2.8 narrows the DOF. Shooting at 200mm at f/2.8 narrows the DOF even more, and the closer you get to the subject at the longest focal length with the largest aperture "blows out" the fore and background even more, making the DOF razor thin and drawing full emphasis to the subject.

Again - not made/bought for the same things/reasons.


Note that her eyes, part of her nose, and part of her cheeks are in focus - the rest is out of focus. It's mathematically impossible to get the DOF in this image at f/5.6 which is what you'd be at.

[dvdowns]

precisely the reason I was considering the sigma f2.8 . Since maximum sharpness is 2 stops below mac aperture it means getting better dof control .

[Jon]

And, Dvdowns, you will notice neither a lack of clarity nor lack of sharpness in the Sigma on your Nikon as compared to a Nikkor lens unless you plan to make 30"+ prints. The tremendously huge difference in price, to me, is not worth the very small difference in quality.

[dvdowns]

I think very few people utilize the expensive lenses they buy for reasons worth justifying what they paid . Obviously there are htose that neew expensive lenses for their work but how many people can spot the difference in a picture between a $500 lens and a $2000 lens ? Vey few I would say !.

[Neo]

ok firstly focal length does not have an impact on DOF - contrary to popular beleif http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml demonstrates that focal length does not affect DOF. Secondly I would very rarely shoot wide open as this is where the lens is softess so I would stop down and this doent give the correct shutter speed I would either use a flash find more lighting or bump up the ISO.

I still think its crazy to buy this lens (and end up spending the price of the 70-200VR) to gain what the 70-200VR does in the first place and therefore have one lens as opposed to two!

Also can you show the maths to prove that you cannot get this DOF at 5.6?