Nikon 18-200 VR vs 18-55 VR & 55-200 VR

Monkey

Monkey

Messages
1,254
Name
Craig Denton
Edit My Images
Yes
Which is the better route, because i really cant decide if ive made the right decision.
 
I am also wondering the same thing....
 
I've got a D40 with 18-55 and 55-200 (although both are not VR) and a D200 with 18-200.

IMHO, the 18-200 wins hands down considering all other aspects - both have same aperture range etc.

I just don't like the lens changing every 5 mins. The 18-200 is such a great walkabout lens.

Out of interest, what route did you take?
 
i took the 2 lens route, and now i find i want a bit more reach when im on the 18-55 and when i put the 55-200 on sometimes i feel i cant get out far enough for the odd shot.
 
Personally, i would go for the 18-200VR Its solidly made and gives excellent results in a walk around lens( I already have one so I am biased)
That would save you swapping the lenses all the time. But, I am told that the two other VR lenses give good quality results and may give you a bit of a slightly sharper image at 200mm.
I think the 18-55 and 55-200 have plastic mounts too so wont be as rugged but will certainly be cheaper than the 18-200vr.

Allan
 
Now, I've heard that some people rate their 18-200 close to "pro" class (aside from the slow speed presumably)...

I'm not sure about that, but it's a good lens. It's equal to the 2 non VR lenses I have that cover the same range as far as sharpness etc go....

You'd need to get them side by side on one body to get a true represenation though - and I don't think you'll find anything specific between them...
 
I know you didnt ask about these lenses, but bearing in mind Monkeys comments ( lack of overlap with the two lenses), how about getting an 18-70 instead of the 18-55. No VR ( do you need it on such a short lens?) but a much better lens all round and you get the overlap. ( or an 18-70 and 70-300VR?)

Allan
 
Interesting thread.

I've just gone the other route, albeit slightly different, from the other posters here.

I've purchased a 18-55mm VR and a 70-300mm VR to replace the 18-200mm VR.

I love the 18-55 as a walk around - I just find the 18-200 too heavy on my D80. The 70-300 obviously gives me an extra 100mm over the 18-200 too. I don't mind changing lenses as I find I don't do it that often anyway. The IQ of both the 18-55 and 70-300 are a lot better than my copy of the 18-200. From what I've heard the 55-200 has better IQ than the 18-200.

Just my humble opinion. :)

Edit -I did intend to have 18-70 and 70-300 but the 18-55 VR came up and I'm very impressed with it.
 
Monkey said:
i took the 2 lens route, and now i find i want a bit more reach when im on the 18-55 and when i put the 55-200 on sometimes i feel i cant get out far enough for the odd shot.
Click to expand...


Im in the same boat and thought i wanted a longer lens as well but got some advise from lensflare who highlighted the fact that if its only the ODD occasion that you need more or less zoom or a wider lens etc do you really really need to go buy more lens especially when the 18-200 vr is nearly double the amount of the 18-55 and 55-200 (i think :thinking:) and to work on techniques instead . But i am a sort of noob so this advise is good for me but hope it helps you anyway :D
 
davekiddle said:
Interesting thread.

I've just gone the other route, albeit slightly different, from the other posters here.

I've purchased a 18-55mm VR and a 70-300mm VR to replace the 18-200mm VR.

I love the 18-55 as a walk around - I just find the 18-200 too heavy on my D80. The 70-300 obviously gives me an extra 100mm over the 18-200 too. I don't mind changing lenses as I find I don't do it that often anyway. The IQ of both the 18-55 and 70-300 are a lot better than my copy of the 18-200. From what I've heard the 55-200 has better IQ than the 18-200.

Just my humble opinion. :)

Edit -I did intend to have 18-70 and 70-300 but the 18-55 VR came up and I'm very impressed with it.
Click to expand...

i love the 18-55 as the walkaround too, the 18-200 is heavy, but not too heavy to live with, i really dont know now, lol.
 
denz said:
do you really really need to go buy more lens especially when the 18-200 vr is nearly double the amount of the 18-55 and 55-200 (i think :thinking:)
Click to expand...

its not quote as bad as double.

The 18-55 is £139.99, the 55-200 is £179.00 -- Total £319.98
and the 18-200 is £429.99

Remember these are the more expensive VR versions.
 
18-200 ain`t a heavy lens mate. Try lugging a 600 about.........:LOL:
 
fracster said:
18-200 ain`t a heavy lens mate. Try lugging a 600 about.........:LOL:
Click to expand...

pahhh 600mm, what about the new 300-800 youve just got, bet that hurts when its on as a walkabout......

Sorry, no, with 800mm you can just lean out of the bedroom window and photograph anything :LOL:
 
Monkey said:
pahhh 600mm, what about the new 300-800 youve just got, bet that hurts when its on as a walkabout......

Sorry, no, with 800mm you can just lean out of the bedroom window and photograph anything :LOL:
Click to expand...


:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL: nice one
 
Monkey said:
its not quote as bad as double.

The 18-55 is £139.99, the 55-200 is £179.00 -- Total £319.98
and the 18-200 is £429.99

Remember these are the more expensive VR versions.
Click to expand...

The 18-200 is VR II, the 55-200 the older VR, the 18-200 has a metal mount, the 55-200 has a plastic one.
 
Both combos have their merits, if I had to choose though I'd probably go for the 18-200, for the metal mount/VRII and convenience. I think you'd forget the £100 or so difference in price pretty quickly
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Both combos have their merits, if I had to choose though I'd probably go for the 18-200, for the metal mount/VRII and convenience. I think you'd forget the £100 or so difference in price pretty quickly
Click to expand...

The £100 isnt really an issue, the only reason i went the other way was i didnt think i would overlap so often.
 
I never heard of VRII until the new 18-105mm lens. There, I've thrown a spanner in the works lol.

I went for the 18-200 straightaway. It's so much more convenient and the 18-55 VR wasn't around at the time. I'd still choose it again.

Saying that, I think I'm going to sell it to fund a new 17-55 f2.8 lol!
 
do you actually use it much considering you have the 70-200 beast and the 18-50 F2.8
 
It is a bit reduntant now. I used to use it all the time before I bought the 18-50 and 70-200. Both the 18-200 and 18-50 will probably make way for a new Nikon 17-55 f2.8.
 
No because I use the 70-200 for motorsport and the 50mm/18-50 for things near me. The 18-200 was used for everything until I bought the others.
 
Shak said:
No because I use the 70-200 for motorsport and the 50mm/18-50 for things near me. The 18-200 was used for everything until I bought the others.
Click to expand...

I hate you - ive just sold my 2 lenses (18-55 and 55-200) as i want happy, and was going to get the 18-200 to do all, but now im looking at the tamron 17-50 f/2.8......

HELP
 
I'm in 2 minds still!

Currently have the 18-55 VR

I either get the 70-300 VR or I sell my 18-55VR and buy the 18-200VR

Both would cost about the same to do. Its just a case of what's convenient really. Having 1 lens that can 'do it all' would definitely be beneficial but I would be sacrificing 100mm.

How old is the 18-200VR? If it is old tech then I think my mind has been made up to go for the 70-300
 
As walkabout lenses go, the 18-200 is the best IMO.

I don't have any need for a walkabout lens anymore, as I'd rather have the full aperture range available to me.

The 18-200 is the same tech as the 70-300.
 
What sort of focal length do you need at the ring?

Im out there atleast once a year and dont want to come up short when taking pictures!
 
The 50mm is by far the best, nothing will beat that!
As for the others; they're all the same. The main/only difference is the aperture.
 
Shak said:
The 50mm is by far the best, nothing will beat that!
As for the others; they're all the same. The main/only difference is the aperture.
Click to expand...

so the IQ from the 18-200 is on a par with your 18-50, and 70-200?

If thats the case, ill get the 18-200 as i dont need the speed, i just want it to be sharp.

Ive just bought ( hopefully ) a 50 f1.8 from flash in the pan, so ive got that for low light indoor work
 
Doug, I'm there about two-three times a year. I never struggle for focal range as I like to try and capture some background for context. Have a look on my site: www.54photography.com

As long as you don't need speed then you will be fine. :)

This was taken with the 18-200:

DSC_6806.jpg
 
that image has just sold me on the 18-200

Any chance of that in hi-res, i fancy it for a desktop wallpaper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top