At first I was poisoned by the 18-200mm VR. But after much consideration.

It's not that good after all. It maybe a versatile lens. But it doesn't suit me.

First of all I already have the 18-135mm kit lens range.

The 18-200mm VR costs RM2.5k while the 70-300mm VR costs RM1.8k.

I rather get the telephoto zoom lens at a cheaper price since I have the 18-135mm range.

Besides that, the 70-300mm VR is a lil tad faster than the 18-200 in terms of f/stop at diff focal lengths.

at 18mm, the 18-200mm VR has very bad distortion compared to the 18mm at 18-135mm lens.

At 200mm on the 18-200mm VR, the picture becomes soft at the edges.

At 200mm on the 70-300mm VR, pictures looks sharp and isn't soft at the edges.

Zoom lenses performs best at it's mid focal length range.

get the 105 vr from nikon...
it's good...
ive been poinsoned....but the stronger poison is 70-200vr...=)

105 vr u can do macro....product shoot...half portrait...

I prefer zoom lenses. Cause more versatile for me.

I am that type who wants the lens to move not myself.

hahahaha...
true true calvin...
zoom lenses are always better...but nikkor zoom cant do macro! =(

I thought the legendary macro lens is the Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di?

The Nikkor 105mm better?

The nikkor 105mm has the advantage of VR and AF-S?

What is the price for both?

This post has been edited by calvin_gsc: Aug 13 2007, 08:27 PM

As i already have a 70-300mm G lens myself , i doesnt feel that Tele lens is much useful in travel side and that's why i'm aiming at the 12-24mm lens aswell as the 18-200mm VR.

Oh no wonder......

Happy shooting!

calvin...
m not sure bout the price for sp90...but the 105 vr is 2700....
i didnt say it's legendary...hehehehe...
i said it's good...at least to me...the AF speed...the wroking distance...the tank-like built...=)

What you pay is what you get

Tamron one should be around 1.4

yeah.. i'm using my 105mm a lot lately..

didn't i say before lowyat forum alot of rich ppl?

You can get away with a close up filter on the 70-200mm for macro, but you cannot shoot it at 200mm + close to min focal distance, as it will be extremely soft. However, around 135mm + close up + (optional) cropping can get you very good result. The lens is very sharp, and bokeh is stellar. But true macro lens is always the way to go...the tamron is yummy.

That is true for consumer range lenses, or super zoom lenses. Most pro lenses is very sharp across the whole focal length. i.e. tokina 50-135mm, sigma 50-150mm, nikkor 80-200mm, nikkor 70-200mm, and etc.

Lenses like 18-200mm, 80-400mm, and etc...obviously gonna suck at long focal length.

sinister....

u have the nikon 105 vr?
hows the performance for non-macro shot?

yalor... i wan 12-24 and 105vr as well...

this thread very poisonous!

*starts saving money

indeed...very poisonous...
now i want ALL the lenses! =(

i am leaning towards the 17-55mm f/2.8 particularly due to the faster AF (and more silent).

anyone sifu can share if the AF is considerably better to justify it's price increase over the Tamron equivalent?


This post has been edited by wlcling: Aug 14 2007, 12:45 PM

Xandman... you have been spotted! good luck getting a bargain... haha

(apologize for the hasty screenshot)

This post has been edited by wlcling: Aug 14 2007, 12:48 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

i shall pump in more poison. checkout the 2 pics in the link below

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/500874

hahahaa...
u r very observant indeed...
=)

---

Added on August 14, 2007, 1:02 pmscotty sifu...
actually...i was poisoned kaw kaw by looking at YOUR pics of the 70-200!

This post has been edited by xandman: Aug 14 2007, 01:02 PM