Nikon telephoto dilema..

[rantasam]

Here's my dilema. I bought a D40 a while back, and not too soon after that a sigma 10-20 to go with it. I've been saving my pennies for a while now with the intention of getting the 18-200vr to entend the range of focal lengths I have available to me. The 18-200 appeals because of the coverage and not having to worry about having the wrong lens to hand and missing the shot. I also like the idea of VR throughout the broad focal range.

I've always felt that the lens is quite steep price-wise though. Out of interest (bordom) at work today, I had a hunt around and found I could get a 18-55vr to replace the kit lens, a 55-200vr, an SB-400 flash AND a lowepro mini trekker for pretty much exactly the same price of the 18-200! This raised my eyebrows a fair bit - I could get everything that's currently (important word ) on my wishlist for the same price as one lens, and still retain VR across the focal range I'm after.

My concerns are whether picture quality would suffer, whether I would eventually come to miss features like manual focus override and whether ultimately I would be sat frantically changing lenses wishing I'd not been such a tight-arse and had shelled out for the 18-200.

I need your thoughts!

 

[Joe T]

You have the normal 18-55 at the moment do you?

If that is the case, then I suggest going for the 70-300 VR - excellent lens - and being done with it!

 

[puddleduck]

The 18-200 VR is a "do it all" lens for wannabe point and shooters. You can do way better with the same money for a little thought

The 18-55 VR / 55-200 VR combo is much better - yes, you need to swap lenses, but this is why we have a lens mount.

The 70-300 VR is really decent too, much better across the entire range it shares with the 18-200 VR.

I'd definately spend the same money on more, and better, rather than go for an all-in-one choice.

 

[rantasam]

If that is the case, then I suggest going for the 70-300 VR - excellent lens - and being done with it!

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I had thought about the 70-300 for a while before I turned my attention to the 18-200. I do like the idea of the extra reach, but I've heard it said on here that beyond 200mm, it's quite soft. :shrug:

 

[puddleduck]

The 70-300 VR can get soft especially towards 300mm, but 70-230-ish really is excellent.

Here is a sample straight from my D60's SD card, wide open @ 270mm IIRC. Its just a random sample, not cherry picked.

Feel free to download the full image and see if you are OK with that?

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/D60/DSC_2755.JPG

Recent airshow @ 300mm

​

Recent "macro" @ 300mm.

​

I find it a competant lens for the money. The 70-200 VR is way better off course!

 

[rantasam]

The 18-200 VR is a "do it all" lens for wannabe point and shooters. You can do way better with the same money for a little thought

Hehe, nicely put. I see exactly what you are saying.

I think the trouble I have is how much opinion on the 18-200 seems to be split. Some seem overwhelmed by it's 'excellence' and speak highly about how it does the job just as well as having numerous individual lenses. Others seem to dislike it as a one-stop solution, and see it as a gimicky compromise.

I guess every zoom is to a degree a compromise over good quality primes, but as equipment develops, I do think convenience and practicality should improve as well as performance. The problem is that while some herald the 18-200 as striking this practicality/performance balance, others deffinitely do not!

I'd definately spend the same money on more, and better, rather than go for an all-in-one choice.

Good clear advice. You've given me a lot to mull over - thanks!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If it was me I'd keep your 18-55 kit lens, as VR isn't really needed on a lens in the focal range, and spend the money on a 70-300 VR and a 50mm f/1.8 and perhaps spend the change on a couple of UV filters or a camera bag

 

[rantasam]

Here is a sample straight from my D60's SD card, wide open @ 270mm IIRC. Its just a random sample, not cherry picked.

Brill, that's just the kinda thing I need to help make my mind up. Top notch, thanks puddleduck.

 

[rantasam]

If it was me I'd keep your 18-55 kit lens, as VR isn't really needed on a lens in the focal range, and spend the money on a 70-300 VR and a 50mm f/1.8 and perhaps spend the change on a couple of UV filters or a camera bag

Ta. It certainly seems like the 70-300 is a popular choice!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

At the time I bought my (now sold) 70-300 VR from Kerso it was £250 less than the 18-200, so I bought that, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and most of a 50mm f/1.8 for the same money

 

[puddleduck]

At the time I bought my (now sold) 70-300 VR from Kerso it was £250 less than the 18-200, so I bought that, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and most of a 50mm f/1.8 for the same money

Thats the way to spend the money.

The Tammy 17-50 blows the 18-200 VR away.

 

[Wail]

I've seen a number of close friends & relatives use the combination of the 18-55 & 55-200 (both the VR and non-VR copies). I have to say that I have been happily surprised by the image quality they've managed out of this combination.

I've also seen a number of close friends & relatives use the 18-22VR, as has been said, this is a great P&S alternative, and not bad at all image quality; but it doesn't beat the first two lens option (especially if you opt for the VRs).

The best choice would be, as has already been told, to go with the 70-300VR. Handled well it can produce stunning shots.

 

[Wail]

Thats the way to spend the money.

The Tammy 17-50 blows the 18-200 VR away.

But these are two totally different lenses :shrug: .. mind you, the Tammy you talk about is a wondeful lens too, especially for the price it's going for.

 

[allanm]

The Tammy 17-50 blows the 18-200 VR away.

Maybe, but only to 50mm and its a totally different type of lens, so there really is no comparison. :nono:

The 18-200vr, when it came out was the lens everyone wanted. People waited months for theirs, nobody seemed disappointed. True, you can get 2 lenses to replace it ( 18-55VR ( susceptible to lens flare and a plastic mount) and the 55-200VR ( plastic mount and soft as well at 200mm) ) but that sort of defeats the object , you might as well get primes! Its not perfect by any means, but allows you to have a very good wide range walkabout lens that takes up little space and produces great results.
I am sure if it was a bad lens, then everyone who bought one would be rubbishing it, but they dont. Most of the people who say it is a poor lens never even had one! I`m impressed everytime I use it

It suffers from lens creep and is a little soft at 200mm, but what zoom lens in that price bracket doesnt suffer at the long end to some extent, certainly, the 70-300 VR does, and I have both. The lens creep I got used to ( a well placed rubber band stops that) I wouldnt be without either.

Whatever anyone says, the 18-200vr is a great lens and deserves a place in anybodys ( Nikon) kit bag. I bought a Sigma 70-200f2.8 to replace my 18-200vr. It didnt perform as well as the Nikon so i sold it.
So, the 18-200vr cant be too bad can it, and I speak as an owner, not a wannabee reviewer!

Allan

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Maybe, but only to 50mm and its a totally different type of lens, so there really is no comparison. :nono:

The 18-200vr, when it came out was the lens everyone wanted. People waited months for theirs, nobody seemed disappointed....... Most of the people who say it is a poor lens never even had one! I`m impressed everytime I use it

It suffers from lens creep and is a little soft at 200mm, but what zoom lens in that price bracket doesnt suffer at the long end to some extent, certainly, the 70-300 VR does, and I have both. The lens creep I got used to ( a well placed rubber band stops that) I wouldnt be without either.


Allan

The 18-200 VR was overhyped and overpriced when it came out at first. Many of those who were singing it's praises had either waited for months to get it (and therefore weren't going to admit to having made a mistake), had one to sell (and weren't going to rubbish it and lose money), had listened to Uncle Ken telling everyone it was the only lens they'd ever need , while some others were speculators with a pile of them to resell

I've shot with both the 18-200 and the 70-300 and qualitywise there isn't really anything between them, pricewise there was up to £250 (depending on the vendor) difference in the price in favour of the 70-300 when I bought the latter. Okay, there is the convenience factor of not having to change lenses with the 18-200, but really, if that is a primary concern then buy a bridge camera

No disrespect Allan, but if I'm spending £4-500 on a lens I don't see why I should have to jam it up with an elastic band to get it to function properly It should work straight out the box, we're not talking about Microsoft here

 

[barneyrubble]

I've shot with both the 18-200 and the 70-300 and qualitywise there isn't really anything between them, pricewise there was up to £250 (depending on the vendor) difference in the price in favour of the 70-300 when I bought the latter. Okay, there is the convenience factor of not having to change lenses with the 18-200, but really, if that is a primary concern then buy a bridge camera

No disrespect Allan, but if I'm spending £4-500 on a lens I don't see why I should have to jam it up with an elastic band to get it to function properly It should work straight out the box, we're not talking about Microsoft here

There are times when you want to be able not to change lenses. I have the 18-200 VR as a walkaround lens for when I'm out with the family. If i'm getting creative or being paid for it then i use one of my 2.8 Zooms. However, the 18-200 is a great walkaround lens for when it's just not possible to carry any more lenses.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

There are times when you want to be able not to change lenses. I have the 18-200 VR as a walkaround lens for when I'm out with the family. If i'm getting creative or being paid for it then i use one of my 2.8 Zooms. However, the 18-200 is a great walkaround lens for when it's just not possible to carry any more lenses.

I'm sure it is a great walkabout lens but, as I said, having to use an elastic band to get it to work as it should (I realise that this only applies to early examples) isn't terribly impressive.

I suppose it comes down to personal preferences, I'd rather have a couple of good lenses and the "bother" of carrying/changing an extra lens than one average one. On the other hand, if convenience is a major priority then I guess the 18-200 fits the bill

 

[barneyrubble]

As you say, personal preferences and constraints. There's often places I go where I physically cannot carry a second lens or could not possibly change lenses. For that the 18-200 is perfect.

But that's why I have both options.