How is autofocus speed and low-light performance compared to the 18-200 line?
1807214
Autofocus is in the same range as the 18-55, haven't paid much attention to low light yet.
1807215
I rate this lens excellent. It is a replacement for my 18-20 and appears to be exactly the same with the exception of the additional magnification. I wish I could have used my sun shade and polarizing filter, but the purchase of new components will not be costly.
740233
The light is spread onto 4x the surface. That is why autofocus is difficult. Sharpness and contrast suffer with a T/C. I have a Sigma 170/500. Results are ok if not to picky.
121338
I've noticed absolutely no difference in autofocus time. Also, the glass appears so much more clear to me than the cheaper brands. I'm guessing that's partially due to the coatings they use. Anyway, you should be very pleased.
1634147
What exactly don't you like about the K-5 autofocus? Accuracy? Speed? Maybe your K-5 needs some repairs?I use the K-5 & K-5II with the center focus points, or manual select, never the auto-select points. Both cameras have about the same speed and accuracy in good light, but in low-light is where the K-5II shines. It's way better in locking focus where the K-5 would just give up. Since I shoot a large percent of my photos in low-light, the K-5II has served me well.
567814
I'm guessing you meant the 18-200 DC OS II? I don't think a 18-250 DC OS II exists yet. The main differences are longer zoom in the 250, while the 200 uses a new lens layout and materials. Overall quality is negligible and the extra cost is all about whether or not that extra 50mm is worth it to you.
848891
Sure thing (I was somehwat surprised to see this thread started from 2008 again). The 17-55 is a real treat in low light, I think you'll love it!
1375619
The p7100 takes really nice shots in auto mode. However, it is a touch slower than I would like. Granted, I am comparing it do a D7000...
1015518
Hello Brian. I've had this lens for four years now, and while my copy has been beset with build quality issues, I can't complain about autofocus. It's not as fast as some of the newest SSM lenses, but it tends to be quick and accurate. You can always check other reviews here: http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T*--DT-16-80-F3.5-4.5_review318.html
608537
Since I don't have the 18-55 I can't compare. But let me say that the 23 is an excellent prime lens which, in daylight, autofocuses almost instantaneously. In dim light, such as twilight, it may (although not necessarily) hunt around in order to find focus. But that would occur just as well with other excellent lenses including Canon L which I also happen to have. In those situations, experienced amateurs will at once shift to manual focus without dropping a beat.
2096572
The 18-200 has better specs across all ranges (read Thom Hogan) A 300 mm lense can be very handy, but check the weight of each lense.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
1634145
What exactly don't you like about the K-5 autofocus? Accuracy? Speed? Maybe your K-5 needs some repairs? I use the K-5 & K-5II with the center focus points, or manual select, never the auto-select points. Both cameras have about the same speed and accuracy in good light, but in low-light is where the K-5II shines. It's way better in locking focus where the K-5 would just give up. Since I shoot a large percent of my photos in low-light, the K-5II has served me well.
684990
I think the low light ability is fairly good. Once the light level drops below a certain level, the camera automatically switches to B/W.
356774
I have both lenses. I never use and in fact just sold the 18-55. The 18-105 is amazing, I highly recommend it. Here's the first picture I took with it the first day I got the 18-105. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557817730963053&set;=a.321466137931548.70815.321449031266592&type;=3&theater;
1835511
i use both the 105 and the 200 and my 200 is my go to every day lens. both are good but i just prefer the 200. hope this helps. distortion is equal on both lens so no real differences noted.
1784358
Yes, absolutely. I find the autofocus to be a bit sluggish, and prefer to focus manually, but you'll find that to the case with just about any long zoom in this price range.
2252858
It's probably a matter of personal preference, however, it was my preference not to change lenses while 'out and about' and I could avoid carry a second lens. The 18-200 lens is obviously heavier that either of the smaller lenses, but it works so beautifully that after I got it, I seldom used the other 2.