Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geoffc" data-source="post: 122709" data-attributes="member: 8705">I was a fan of the 18-200 for years and my wife still has hers. I still think its a great lens, however, if you drop a 24-70 or 70-200 2.8 on the camera the results are not comparable if you're looking at detail. I did this with the my d300s and only used the 18-200 when I didn't want weight after that. Whenever I wanted IQ or speed the 70-200 goes on. I've now gone FX and the 24-120 is my new walkabout and I would say that also beats the 18-200 by some way, but obviously has less range. I'll put it in perspective. The IQ on my 70-200 vrii with a 2 x teleconvertor is better than my 18-200 was at 200mm.In my experience glass is more important than pixels, especially if you already have a lot on your 7000. Admittedly I can crop huge chunks off my D800 files and still have 15-20 megapixel landscapes <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geoffc, post: 122709, member: 8705"] I was a fan of the 18-200 for years and my wife still has hers. I still think its a great lens, however, if you drop a 24-70 or 70-200 2.8 on the camera the results are not comparable if you're looking at detail. I did this with the my d300s and only used the 18-200 when I didn't want weight after that. Whenever I wanted IQ or speed the 70-200 goes on. I've now gone FX and the 24-120 is my new walkabout and I would say that also beats the 18-200 by some way, but obviously has less range. I'll put it in perspective. The IQ on my 70-200 vrii with a 2 x teleconvertor is better than my 18-200 was at 200mm. In my experience glass is more important than pixels, especially if you already have a lot on your 7000. Admittedly I can crop huge chunks off my D800 files and still have 15-20 megapixel landscapes :-) [/QUOTE]

Verification