My Nikon Lenses

Spoony

Spoony

Messages
594
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I currently have my Kit lens 18-55 and a 55-200

Is the Nikon 18-200mm a better quality of lens then the two I already have (I am basing this on price difference)

Is it worth me getting rid of my two lenses and getting the 18 – 200 if i wanted one lens to do the job of two?

I know good glass is important, but I don’t know what good glass is!

Any pointers would be appreciated.

:thumbs:
 
Good question...I am in this same exact dilemma..looking forward for the answers. Thanks for asking.
 
I have the Nikkor 16-85, a beautiful lens.

This week I took delivery of a Nikkor 55-200, initial results are excellent IMVHO, I'd hang on to that one.

D in W
 
I think that the difference for the OP will be marginal; a better option would be to replace the 18-55 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and then you will begin to notice differences when it comes to low light shooting, or becoming more creative.

With the wider aperture, you have many more options available.
 
Yes it does make sense, 18-200 makes excellent all-arounder and it's optical quality is comparable to that of 18-55 and 55-200.

However, don't expect stellar performance. For crisp portraits and magnificent landscapes get a couple of good primes.
 
Spoony said:
Hi

I currently have my Kit lens 18-55 and a 55-200

Is the Nikon 18-200mm a better quality of lens then the two I already have (I am basing this on price difference)

Is it worth me getting rid of my two lenses and getting the 18 – 200 if i wanted one lens to do the job of two?

I know good glass is important, but I don’t know what good glass is!

Any pointers would be appreciated.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I would say no. The 55-200 punches well above its weight and I'd save your money
 
Couple of questions, are you happy with what you have got? and would you rather carry one lens than 2?

Next price Nikon18-55mm lens =£97 approx new price
Nikon 55-200 mm lens =£157 approx new price
Total =£254
so you would be lucky to get £200 if you sold both and I doubt if you would get even that in P/X

The one your after the 18-200 mm lens is around £550 so you would have to find at least £350 to change over if not more.

So weigh up the cost as well before making any decision

If you are looking for good glass then really you should be looking at f2.8 lenses as a rule of thumb.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
What people seem to forget is does it fit in with what you are trying to achieve? Is the lenses fit for purpose:
If you have a camera to take photos of flowers and family then what you have is sufficient, I have an 18-200 and it travelled Europe with me taking a broad verity of images from landscapes to people and the VR helped in low light, with its focal range too it saved me a lot of weight so it was fit for purpose.

Fast Lenses,,,,, all hype and really depends on what you want and what they are to be used for.
Family scenario again, take the 17-55 fast, sharp, quick to focus, heavy, expensive filters etc etc, if your just going to be taking snap shots its a big investment for its useage.

Where as in a wedding scenario, low light, money involved and speed is important its a wise investment and the f2.8 helps focus in low light but for the latter of shots still looking to shoot F4 minimum.

So, if I haven't made the point yet, its what are you going to be shooting, is investing in some thing else going to be a big expense collecting dust or is it going to get a lot of hammer? or some where in between?

Answer that then you should be able to choose more wisely possibly saving a whole lot of money!

(Says me who has a fish eye in the bag that gets used once a blue moon, but its nice to have!)
 
I'm going to give you the answer you really need.

No! No! Spoony don't do it run away! Save yourself!!!

The 18-200 is an absolute dog. Ignore Ken Rockwell and his growing family, if I were to sum it up in one word it would be "pants" (I'm not sure if barry above me is thinking of the same lens as it's f3.5 not f2.8)
I've used both the nikon 18-200 and the 18-105 and as bad as the 105 is the 18-200 was worse. I do like the non-VR 18-70 though and am pleased to own it again.

The 17-50 tamron is the usual and highly recommended upgrade to the kit lens http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF17...V0QQ/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1309526207&sr=8-5 (yes that's the non-vr version, it's actually far sharper than the new one)

The 50-200 is actually fine and the next upgrade to that is the 70-300
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-...TF8&coliid=I39GOHI1FE8WH8&colid=1XPNJ7356YHVN
 
Last edited:
You will get better image quality from the lenses you have (which are actually VERY good), more convenience and better build (metal mount, focus distance screen) from the 18-200.

Up to you if you think it's worth it.
 
Well thank you to all who have taken the time to comment.

My main point of thinking was is the 18-200 better quality of lens than what I already have so I could have one lens which does the job of two. I see the answer is no, is it worth it again ‘no’

Thanks for the recommendations on the next lenses I should be looking at, it all helps.

I don’t have a particular thing which I take photos of, as I am learning I like taking pictures of everything from flowers, people, building to sunsets and trying out different techniques like light painting and night photography etc.

I think I will keep what I have a start looking for a macro lens (the pictures on this site of macro work are inspiring to say the least) oh and a wide angle.

I like buying quality so it takes a while to build up the funds, but it’s nice to have something to aim towards. :D
 
Despite now owning a D700 I keep a D60, 18-55, 55-200 and 35 1.8 as a GREAT travel combo.

In fact, rather than buying any of the lenses mentioned so far in this thread, I'd say the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 should be the lens you buy next :)
 
The answer depends on what you use it for. The 18-200 is a good all rounder and ticks the convenience. However, I believe you lose in other departments. This tends to be the norm with zoom lenses.

If you are going for portraits & general photography then I would look at the Nikon 50mm & 35mm respectively. Cheaper and far better. I bow to more learned opinion of other forum members on the other lenses mentioned.
 
Spoony said:
I don’t have a particular thing which I take photos of, as I am learning I like taking pictures of everything from flowers, people, building to sunsets and trying out different techniques like light painting and night photography etc.
Click to expand...

In this case I wouldn't bother until you've settled into your genre of photography (if you ever do that is, nothing wrong with doing everything!) and then buy the lens that suits.

I have an 18-200 and it is the lens of choice when I'm out on trips etc and only want to carry one lens, and it would be my lens of choice for holidays etc (although I'd also take my 35mm). Most weeks though I shoot sports and don't ever take this lens as it doesn't suit what I want to do.

As you already have lenses that cover the range then don't worry about getting one of these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top