Nikon 18-200 VR or 2 lens solution?

Llamaman

Llamaman

Proud Addick
Messages
7,422
Name
Not an addick!
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m currently using a 18-105 VR on my D5000 which I’ve found to be a pretty good lens, but a few times I’ve found the reach to be a little too short (especially places like the zoo where the foot zoom doesn’t work).

I was originally planning on getting a 70-300 VR to complement the 18-105 VR, with a plan to eventually replace the 18-105 with a 16-85 VR. (I’ve heard the 55-300 isn’t anywhere near as good as the 70-300 in terms of AF performance, so I’ve not considered it further.)

However, having read Uncle Ken’s raving reviews of the 18-200 VR, I’m now not so sure.

Having a single lens would be a lot more convenient than carrying around 2 (plus my 35mm 1.8 which lives in the camera bag), and I could probably learn to live without the 200-300mm range for the convenience (200 will still be ~twice what I have now).

Am I likely to notice a significant improvement in IQ between the two lens solutions (18-105 and 70-300 and then 16-85 and 70-300) compared with a single 18-200? I don’t expect the superzoom to be as exactly as good, but how much difference is there? Has anyone had experience of using two or more of these setups?

I’m not in any great rush, but I’ll be going away on holiday in late Feb/early March and would like to get the lens(es) before then to give them their day in the sun (literally!).
 
While the 18-200 is good, all zoom lenses are a compromise. The bigger the zoom range, the bigger the compromise.

Uncle Ken raves about his - but then he also raves about the D40 almost to the point of stating that it's better than the D3/D3s

I have an 18-200, and various other lenses that cover the same range. I only ever use the 18-200 if I am limited with space or want to travel "light".

Personally, I'd go for the 2 lens solution.
 
OutLore said:
I have an 18-200, and various other lenses that cover the same range. I only ever use the 18-200 if I am limited with space or want to travel "light".
Click to expand...
Exactly the kind of reply I wanted! Thankyou :love:

Off to hunt a 2nd-hand 70-300 then... :naughty:
 
I had the Nikon 18-105 and after going through the same thoughts as you, bought the Nikon 18-200.

IMHO, I felt the results from the 18-200 were not quite as good as the 18-105 and, despite it being very convenient, felt I should have gone for the 2 lens solution. I could see a difference, but it wasn't much.

I now run the 17-55 and 70-300 which is an awesome lens and quite light too.
 
For the cost of the 18-200 you could probably get the 70-300VR and the wonderful 18-70.
 
cambsno said:
For the cost of the 18-200 you could probably get the 70-300VR and the wonderful 18-70.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of the 18-70 - looks like a nice lens for the price, compared with the 16-85 VR which is £120 more.
 
cambsno said:
For the cost of the 18-200 you could probably get the 70-300VR and the wonderful 18-70.
Click to expand...

When they came out at first I had the choice of either an 18-200 or a 70-300 VR, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. All brand new, the three lens combo was only £30 more.....
 
My plan was to sell the 18-105 once I got the 70-300 and 16-85 (no point keeping it as a walkaround if it only has 20mm over the otherwise superior 16-85). But I'll now consider the 18-70 too.

Just have to decide whether to get both lenses now or hold off on the short lens and invest in tripod and flash instead...
 
I havent used the 16-85 but all reports seem to be very positive. I however have the 18-70 and its a gem of a lens. Its also a third of the price of a 16-85!
I also have the 70-300VR and it too is superb.
 
Yes, the 16-85 VR is very good (I have one), but it's not that far ahead of the 18-70, which I also have.

I would go with the 18-70 + 70-300 VR. I picked them both up (in mint condition) for less than £300. You just need to be patient ;)
 
I'm not good with patience!

I've seen currently for sale a 18-70 for £150 and a 16-85 with warranty for £289. Tricky decision. The 18-70 is a stop faster at the tele end (albeit shorter), whereas the 16-85 is a tad wider and has VR (which is what, 3 stops or so?). Hmm. :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top