You are right about the cost of yours. In fact I think you have told me that before in another thread and I continue to mistake it for the 70 - 200 that is 1600.00. Sorry.
B&H has the 55- 200 for 249.95. Why is it so much less than the 18 - 200? Is there a difference in VRII and VR? Seems like since I have the 18 - 135 that came with my D80 I do not necessarily need the 18 of the 18 - 200VR.
Maybe the same logic should be used to justify the extra reach of the 70 - 300 VR. $500 is still less than the 750 for the 18-200. It would give me the extra to get the 50mm 1.8 I also want. Yeckim, do you think the 70 - 300 is a "walkaround" lens or is it too heavy?
Yeah, the 70-300VR is a pretty hefty piece of gear...heaviest lens I've ever owned, I'd guess. I started out in film SLR's way back when, and cannot recall ever having a heavier lens, and they all had metal barrels back then...not plastic like the consumer zooms of today.
Here is a comparison of weights of the lenses we're discussing, from
Nikon's website:
55-200VR: 11.8 oz
18-135: 13.6 oz
18-200VR: 19.8 oz
70-300VR: 26.3 oz
Since you have the 18-135, and the 70-300VR is almost exactly twice as heavy, you should be able to get an idea of what that would mean in terms of it being a walkaround. I've taken mine to the zoo thrice and did not find it uncomfortable to carry around on my D50, which is roughly the same size/weight as your D80. How I'll feel about it after a full day, baking in the central Florida July heat and humidity at Mickey's World, I can't say. My fear is that if I leave it behind on any day, I'll be kicking myself for so doing.
Call me crazy (Mrs. YEKCIM surely will...), but I'll probably end up taking both the 18-135 *and* the 70-300VR, along with the 50mm/f1.8 for low light stuff (small and weighs practically nothin'). In addition, I'll have my Canon
scared1
camcorder, plus all the other junk you carry around all day. Hey, I was a Boy Scout at one time and I live the motto, "Be Prepared", even at the risk of blown out arches and heat stroke.
In answer to the question as to why the 55-200VR is so much less than the 18-200VR, I would ask this question: why is the 18-200VR three to four times MORE than the 55-200VR? First, the build quality is probably a bit better on the 18-200VR; the 18-200VR also has quite a bit more range than the 55-200VR; it is also as close to a perfect walkaround lens as you can get and, finally, Nikon is selling as many (which ain't many, apparently) of them as they can crank out of the factory. It's simple Econ 101: supply (few) and demand (great). Is it worth $900-1000? Not to me, but that's just me. I'm happy with what I've got and for the present my LBA is more or less dormant. I've got way more gear than I can use effectively as it is.
Later...
~YEKCIM
