Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D90/D80/D70 (Public) topic #239803
View in linear mode

Subject: "Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200" Previous topic | Next topic
krm100 Gold Member Nikonian since 13th Jan 2010Fri 15-Jan-10 07:56 PM
54 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"


Whitestone, US
          

I recently purchased the D90 with the stock 18-105 lens. Would it make sense to sell this lens and purchase the Nikon 18-200? My photography consists of family and travel. I have done much photography in the past, but this is my first DSLR. I am just getting to know this camera and the results so far are great!

My equipment is:
Nikon D90 with 18-105
Nikon 35 mm F1.8
Nikon 50 mm F1.8
Nikon SB 600 Flash

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
wa_moses
15th Jan 2010
1
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
Floridian Silver Member
15th Jan 2010
2
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
WD4MLA Silver Member
15th Jan 2010
3
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
krm100 Gold Member
15th Jan 2010
4
     Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
dnf777
16th Jan 2010
5
          Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
Alx
16th Jan 2010
6
               Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
greenwing Gold Member
16th Jan 2010
7
               Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
km6xz Moderator
16th Jan 2010
9
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
happysnappy123
16th Jan 2010
8
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
rosborn Silver Member
16th Jan 2010
10
     Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
krm100 Gold Member
16th Jan 2010
11
          Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
blw Moderator
17th Jan 2010
12
               Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
krm100 Gold Member
18th Jan 2010
13
                    Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
Floridian Silver Member
18th Jan 2010
14
Reply message RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200
eNoBlog
20th Jan 2010
15

wa_moses Registered since 07th Apr 2009Fri 15-Jan-10 08:25 PM
129 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 0


Houston, US
          

>I recently purchased the D90 with the stock 18-105 lens.
>Would it make sense to sell this lens and purchase the Nikon
>18-200? My photography consists of family and travel. I have
>done much photography in the past, but this is my first DSLR.
>I am just getting to know this camera and the results so far
>are great!
>
>My equipment is:
>Nikon D90 with 18-105
>Nikon 35 mm F1.8
>Nikon 50 mm F1.8
>Nikon SB 600 Flash

If I were you with your family and travel focus, I would keep the 18-105, get rid of the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 70-300 VRII instead. Then you would be covered 18 to 300mm. Push came to shove you could even get rid of the 35mm f/1.8 as well.

Only you can know best though, because a lot depends on your skill level and interest in photography.

Regards
Wayne


Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Fri 15-Jan-10 08:32 PM
2707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 0


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

I would say use what you have, and if it comes up short you can then consider selling your 18-105 to get the 18-200.

I have the 18-200 and use it as my main (and frequently, only) travel lens. I have a very high opinion of that lens, for its versatility. It's a "one lens solution" that allows you to travel light and have a great range.

But most of the photos I take with it are within the 18-105 range. Occasionally I will go all the way out to 200, but I would think that the 18-105 would give you most of the benefits you would get from the 18-200.

If you are going to sell your 18-105, I don't think there would be a big advantage to doing it now rather than later. So you might as well use it and see if it serves you well. If you want that extra 95mm after you've used your current lens, that would be the time to get the 18-200.

Another alternative would be to add the 70-300VR to what you have. Although this requires changing lenses, you'd then have two lenses that would take you out to 300mm. Which would be better? Some people will prefer one; some the other. That's why I think you'd do well to see how you like the 18-105 before you decide to swap it.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

WD4MLA Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Fri 15-Jan-10 08:42 PM
896 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 0


Sylva, US
          

I would keep the 18-105 and if you find yourself in need of something longer, get the 70-300VR lens, which is a Nikonian favorate.

You will get a little better IQ with the two lens than the 18-200mm.

I shot with my 18-135mm for a couple years before adding the 70-300VR, so it depends on your shooting style.

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
krm100 Gold Member Nikonian since 13th Jan 2010Fri 15-Jan-10 10:56 PM
54 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 3


Whitestone, US
          

THANKS ALL FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS. I THINK I WILL WORK WITH THE 18-105 FOR A WHILE. IF I DECIDE ON THE 70-300VR WILL I HAVE TO MORTGAGE THE HOUSE?

THANKS AGAIN. THIS IS A GREAT FORUM.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
dnf777 Registered since 08th Jan 2009Sat 16-Jan-10 02:36 AM
348 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 4


Franklin, US
          

When I jumped into DSLRs, I got the D90 with the 18-105, and a 70-300VR. Those two lenses will go far. I would not dump the kit lens too quickly, you may find you really like it as your walk-around lens. It does surprisingly well in a wide variety of situations. I second my fellow Nikonians enthusiasm for the 70-300 as well. For the price, it's one heck of a lens in the amateur's bag.

Dave F
Franklin, Pa

"Always do right. You'll gratify some, and astound the rest." Mark Twain

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Alx Registered since 19th Nov 2005Sat 16-Jan-10 05:41 AM
391 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 5
Sat 16-Jan-10 05:49 AM by Alx

Nashville, US
          

You might consider that the 18~200 lens has the same maximum aperture at each end of the lens' range of zoom as the 18~105, but at 105 mm, the 18~200 lens is faster by about a half-stop, as well being proportionally a bit faster at every in-common focal length over 18mm. The 18~200 lens is also of a better construction, with a metal mount.

Both the 18~105 and the 55~300 lens are of the plastic mount type, and the frequent changing of these lenses on and off the body presents a wear liability and breakage risk, at least above the metal mount, and in my opinion, is a significant consideration.

The plastic-mount kit lenses are aimed primarily at users who never get around to buying another, and are best left mounted all the time without changing. About the 55~300 and the 70~300 with the plastic mounts .... well they are lightweight at least, but the physical length of the lens means much more leverage against that plastic mount. I do own the 70~300 myself, and it makes me truly concerned to look at the thin fragile plastic ledges of the lens-mount.



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
greenwing Gold Member Nikonian since 18th May 2006Sat 16-Jan-10 09:03 AM
1299 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 6


Yorkshire, GB
          

>...the 55~300 lens are of the plastic mount type...

Do you mean the 55-200, which has a plastic mount, or the 70-300 VR which has a metal mount?

Chris

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Sat 16-Jan-10 09:19 AM
3292 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 6
Sat 16-Jan-10 09:21 AM by km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
          

I can offer a rebuttle concerning the wearabilty of the plastic mount lens. I have the 18-105vr and have mounted and unmounted it hundreds of times in the last year and find that it is still in great physical shape.
I use it often due to its very versatile range, for example last night I attended an all night birthday party for a close friend who had invited 8 of her closest girlfriends and me for a home event. I used mostly quality pro lenses for shooting last night(70-200, 85 1.4, 17-55, etc) but none sometimes had the range I needed so switched several times to the 18-105 with great results. One of the girls asked to shoot so after showing her how to select modes and ISO and use the shutter release for focusing and release I just turned my attention to being more involved with the party. After 10 minutes she complained the camera (actually the lens was a 70-200vr) was too heavy and so I changed to the 18-105vr and she went really got into it, took about 300 images. We downloaded them on a computer in the apartment to look at them and we were all impressed how good most turned out regardless if it was a $1800 lens or the kit lens. She loved the flexibility and handling with the 18-105vr. I think we made another convert, she shoots with a 450d Canon. She was particularly impressed with the exposure consistency using the SB900 and AF speed/accuracy

The 18-200vr is popular for one reason that I can tell, it does not require changing lenses while traveling. But it is expensive for a minor step up in build quality and no improvement in image quality. Saving $800 by not getting one would allow getting a longer lens with better IQ(70-300vr perhaps) or if travel is the major use, an ultra-wide angle would be used more often for tourism: buildings/architecture, landscapes, interior of museums etc
I work with thousands of tourist each summer and see that they use wide angle a lot more than telephoto.
If there is a desire to really upgrade in optics, bypass the 18-200, it wins no awards for IQ, only versatility, and instead save for a few pro lenses. The $800 or so saved would buy a 85 1.8 or go a long ways towards a 105 macro, or a used 70-200vr, 17-55 or dozens of other quality lenses that are put to good use on a camera with the D90's capabilities.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

happysnappy123 Registered since 08th May 2002Sat 16-Jan-10 09:17 AM
412 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 0


Perth, AU
          

The 18-105mm VR produces higher image quality than the 18-200mm. On top of that, you will probably find that the majority of your photos will be taken using shorter focal lengths anyway. Hence I would recommend keeping the 18-105mm VR and if required, purchase the excellent 70-300mm VR if you need the extra reach.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
rosborn Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Oct 2009Sat 16-Jan-10 03:59 PM
76 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 8


Chelsea, US
          

The 70-300 will cost you about $600. I have the 18-105 and the 70-300 and I love both of them!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
krm100 Gold Member Nikonian since 13th Jan 2010Sat 16-Jan-10 11:10 PM
54 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 10


Whitestone, US
          

Thanks again for all your help and education on Nikon lenses. As I said before I will keep my 18-105 and definitely consider the Nikon 70-300. In the spring my grandson will be giving a dance recital on a lighted stage. Will the Nikon 70-300 be able to pull in pictures? I am not sure of the distance, but I will get there early to get up front.

Stan had recommended a 85 mm F1.8, 105mm Macro, and a ultra wide zoom (what range and F stop?). Also, how will I use these lenses? Pardon my ignorance.

Kent

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 17-Jan-10 04:18 PM
26546 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#12. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 11


Richmond, US
          

> In the spring my grandson will be giving a dance recital on a lighted stage. Will the Nikon 70-300 be able to pull in pictures?

Distance-wise, probably so. 300mm is about like a 10x binocular - it really brings you in close. It's about 3x closer than your 18-105 @ 105mm. However, light-wise, that's questionable. "Lighted" or even "well-lighted" means one thing to human eyes, and another photographically.

> Stan had recommended a 85 mm F1.8, 105mm Macro, and a ultra wide zoom (what range and F stop?). Also, how will I use these lenses?

The 85/f1.8 is a moderate length telephoto that has a fast f1/.8 aperture. It lets in a lot of light, meaning that it is MUCH easier to use in lower light conditions. Your 18-105 is about f/5 at 85mm, which is almost three full stops slower than f/1.8 - which is the difference between 1/20th sec shutter speed and 1/160th. The former probably doesn't work, the latter almost certainly does. But f/1.8 is not without tradeoffs: it's a fixed focal length, meaning that you zoom with your feet (or seat). And f/1.8 means very shallow depth of field, so your skill at using AF becomes critical.

The 105mm macro is also a moderate length telephoto, but one with a special property: it focuses REALLY closely. So closely that you can fill the frame with a quarter, or thereabouts. Macro lenses as a class tend to about the sharpest lenses available, too. One might use this for details pictures of flowers, insects, parts of a model, stamps, etc. Or they usually work very nicely as portrait lenses too.

An ultra-wide zoom is something that will really stretch out and get a lot into the frame, although it also comes with the requirement to get in fairly close, as it tends to push subjects away (making the smaller). Examples would be the Nikon 10-24/f3.5-4.5, Sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 and Tokina 11-16/f2.8. As with any sort of lens, using this effectively takes some adaptation and skill. These tend to be used mostly for landscapes, interiors of buildings, and some sorts of things were exaggeration of perspective is interesting.

> Pardon my ignorance.

No worries. That's one of the big reasons why this community exists.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
krm100 Gold Member Nikonian since 13th Jan 2010Mon 18-Jan-10 01:21 PM
54 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 12


Whitestone, US
          

Thanks for the reply and information. What lens would you recommend for the dance recital and lighted stage?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Mon 18-Jan-10 04:04 PM
2707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 13
Mon 18-Jan-10 04:06 PM by Floridian

Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>... What lens would you
>recommend for the dance recital and lighted stage?

I see you have the 50mm f1.8. Can you get close enough to use that? If so, that would be a great lens in this situation.

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

eNoBlog Registered since 14th Aug 2009Wed 20-Jan-10 08:39 PM
149 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Nikon 18-105 vs. Nikon 18-200"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

As a prior owner of the 18-200 who traded sideways to the 16-85, my inclination is to recommend you stick with the 18-105. It all depends on the type of shooting you do, of course. The biggest question you have to ask yourself is whether you want an all-in-one lens with the compromises it brings, or 2-3 lenses that get the job done. The other question is whether you will shoot mostly wide or long. In my case, with the 18-200 I found most of my travel pictures were wide landscapes and cityscapes, which told me I needed a shorter lens. Currently I do most of my shooting with the 16-85 and 10-24 Nikons, and the 70-300 comes out usually when I'm doing sports.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNo
"It's easy to argue about equipment, but hard to argue with a good photograph."

Visit my Blog ~ Gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D90/D80/D70 (Public) topic #239803 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.