Nikon 18-200mm vs 70-200mm

I have the 18-200mm for my Nikon D7500 and know it's for crop sensor cameras.  I've been thinking about moving to full frame and from what I gather, the crop lens won't work on the full frame camera.  I noticed the 70-200mm, and of course noticed it's priced a lot more than my 18-200mm was.  

In terms of image quality the 70-200mm is a better lens right?  How does the 70-200mm compare to the 28-300mm lens I see that is also available for full frame cameras?

The 200mm 2.8? Those are amazing lenses. Even an f4 200mm that some companies make are really, really good. The 70-200mm is an optimal range for a longer focal length. The 18-200mm was designed more for people that wanted one lens to do MOST at a reasonable price. It's convenience with good quality. That said, you can't make an optic with such a large range, variable aperture, as as good as one with a constant aperture and less focal range. 

It's more of a matter of, what IQ do you want/need? When you have your 18-200mm attached to the camera, what % of your shots are 70-200? 

The 18-200 will work on any Nikon F-mount body. And a full frame body can be shot in crop mode, or, better, you just crop in post. You won't necessarily suffer from vignetting throughout the entire range; moreso at the long end.

The 18-200 is a good walk-around lens. The 70-200 is in a different class. The VRII is a fine lens and performs very well in terms of IQ and AF. The newest 70-200 is amazing in IQ. Truly amazing.

I can't comment on the 28-300, but you have to figure out what you need. That would be the FX version of the DX 18-200, and likely a fine walk-around lens.

You'll find that, if you need the short end of the lens, that 70-200 won't make you happy. You'll want two lenses in that case. But a D750 and the 28-300 might be everything you require and make you quite happy.... if you can define "happiness."

A good friend of mine, who started out with an APS-C Nikon had the 18-200mm as her walk around daily lens.  When you moved to full frame, she picked up the 28-300mm and found it to be comparable and incredible lens.  

Nikon 18-200mm  is a f/3.5-5.6 vs the Nikon 70-200mm is f/2.8.  The 70-200mm is going to be faster, sharper, heavier and more expensive lens for some good reasons.  It's a work horse.  The 18-200mm is more for everyday walk around lens for crop sensor cameras.  I have the lens, it's awesome.  Cheap (I bought mine used) and it does a good job.  

That 70-200mm will be a much better lens in the long haul for you.  It's sharper and faster lens.  

Chase Audate wrote: In terms of image quality the 70-200mm is a better lens right?

The splendid 70~200 is has a pro workhorse status in
my bag and it is IF… a most important feature for me.

garyrhook wrote: The 18-200 will work on any Nikon F-mount body. And a full frame body can be shot in crop mode, or, better, you just crop in post. You won't necessarily suffer from vignetting throughout the entire range; moreso at the long end.

The 18-200 is a good walk-around lens. The 70-200 is in a different class. The VRII is a fine lens and performs very well in terms of IQ and AF. The newest 70-200 is amazing in IQ. Truly amazing.

I can't comment on the 28-300, but you have to figure out what you need. That would be the FX version of the DX 18-200, and likely a fine walk-around lens.

You'll find that, if you need the short end of the lens, that 70-200 won't make you happy. You'll want two lenses in that case. But a D750 and the 28-300 might be everything you require and make you quite happy.... if you can define "happiness."

Thank you. 
I noticed there are two 70-200mm lenses, one VR and other VR II.  There is a bit of a price difference between them.  Would you say that the VR II was worth the price gap?  

Chase Audate wrote: I noticed there are two 70-200mm lenses, one VR and other VR II.  There is a bit of a price difference between them.  Would you say that the VR II was worth the price gap?  

Yes. And the even newer one is worth its price. Truly amazing.

You should be able to find a used VRII in very good condition for about $1200.

garyrhook wrote:

Chase Audate wrote: I noticed there are two 70-200mm lenses, one VR and other VR II.  There is a bit of a price difference between them.  Would you say that the VR II was worth the price gap?  

Yes. And the even newer one is worth its price. Truly amazing.

You should be able to find a used VRII in very good condition for about $1200.

Thank you again.  

BTW what are your feelings on the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for Nikon? 

Chase Audate wrote: BTW what are your feelings on the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for Nikon? 

When I used one about 4 years ago, I felt is was soft wide open. I shoot wide open, so that wasn't permissible.

70-200 all day long