Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 3, 2005, 7:11 PM   #1
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Hello!

I was wondering if anyone has a good experience/knowledge about those two lenses.
Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3 XR Di II and Nikon 17-70mm DX (the one whicj comes with N D70s).
I'm wondering if I should buy Tamrons 18-200 or Nikons 17-70 + either 55-200 or 70-300.
Thanks for your help,

woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 7, 2005, 12:36 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
eburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Default

I have the Nikon 18-70 (it's 18 not 17) f3.5-4.5 AF-S and the 70-300 f4-5.6. I absolutely LOVE the 18-70 AF-S. It's a great range, a great "walking around lens", and AF-S makes it super fast focusing.

The 70-300 I just bought a replacement for. It's a sharp lens, light weight and has a great range, but at f4-5.6 it's too slow (dark) for anything but bright sun, and I've had terrible problems with chromatic aberration. That's where you get weird color fringing or halos around areas of high contrast. It's better at smaller apertures, but then it's even harder to use in less than perfect lighting.

Definitely get the 18-70 f3.5-4.5 AF-S though, nearly everyone loves 'em!

-Erik
eburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2005, 2:28 PM   #3
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

This is what I found out that the 18-70 (sorry for typo above) are great. So which one would you suggest as a tele zoom 55-200 or 70-300?
woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2005, 3:13 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
eburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Default

Between those, probably the 55-200. AF-S is awesome, and the 70-300 is pretty weak above 200mm anyway.

I'd look closely at the reviews of the 55-200 though. It's in the same $200-300 class as the 70-300, and you might have the same problems with chromatic aberration I did.

If you have $800-$1500 to spend, I'd look at the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR, 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR or the Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 OS (OS is sigma's name for VR).

eburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2005, 3:19 PM   #5
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Well, that is the factor "if I had..." :-)
Thanks for your help. I'm reading reviews right now and probably I will go for 55-200.

woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2005, 3:11 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 29
Default



I have the 70-300G and love it, @ f8 its sharp in good light,in low lightuse a tripod.

other then sharp photos what I like about this lens, its easy to carry and wont make you cry if you drop it. its plastic! so what at this price get an other in 3-5 years if you think the plastic is worn down a little.




jobi64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2005, 9:56 AM   #7
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Well now I know I should stick to Nikons lens. I will go either for 55-200 or 70-300.

thanks everybody.
woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 9:25 PM   #8
Member
 
jmoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 32
Default

I received my 18-200 tamron on Friday from Canoga Camera in LA.* First, they were GREAT to deal with!**I tested this lens in the woods behind my house, and during a two-day tennis tournament shooting players.* The lens BLOWS BIG CHUNKS.Very, very soft.* I had to do way to much post processing to bring the shots back to some degree of sharpness so I can keep them.I shipped the lens on Monday back to Canoga Camera.I tried to purchase the Nikon VR18-200 but were out of stock for some time so I wound up purchasing on eBay a used Nikon 28-200 F3.5-5.6 D lens.* I have been shooting with it ALL DAY today and it is absolutely fantastic. I am very, very happy.* It repalces my Nikon 28-105 macro which broke and was the reason I purchased the Tamron.I also own the Tokina 12-24mm F4 which is absolutely PHENOMENAL!Hope this helps.JM
jmoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 9:28 PM   #9
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

This topic was soooo long ago that it really surprise me when I got an email notification about a new post here. Anyways; I agree that Tokina 12-24 is a really GREAT deal and lens. I think this is one of my the most use lens.

...and BTW. I already got 70-200 2.8 VR :-)
woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 11:08 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Default

Yes, I AM a lil late on this posting, but here it is anyway. I would recommend buying a used Nikon 80 200 2.8 lens if you don't mind toting the weight of the thing and can put up w/ it's huge size. It is the sharpest zoom I have ever used. Period. You can pick them up used on eBay or K.E.H. for $450 or so. Every time I look thru my old shots I am impressed w/ the images this lens delivered, and it was a lot of fun seeing such a sharp and clear image in the viewfinder. Careful if you are using it for a portrait lens, as you may have to defocus it a bit. Beautiful bokeh. But it does attract attention so I finally had to sell mine. Not possible for candids w/ this bazooka.
galvestonsteve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:25 PM.