Hi everyone, I have decided to order the D7000 body only. I am looking for input to help me select one of these two lenses. Looking for 18-200/f3.5-5-6 VRII OR the 24-120/f4 as all around travel lens. I plan to go also to a FX setup in the future so I am trying to buy my lenses now to use for DX and FX. I am debating if I should get the 24-120/f4 now, or get and 18-200vrII and sell it later. I know that the 18-200vrII won't work in a FX. Have not read any reviews for the 24-120/f4, which of the two lenses is a better glass. Future purchases 12-24/f2.8, 24-70/f2.8 and 70-200/f2.8 VRII. What do you guys think?
Looking forward to hear what everyone has to offer. Thank you.
Hi. I have preordered the D7000 myself (waiting impatiently for it!) and will be using my 18-200 VR when a walkaround lens is needed (which is a fair amount of the time). I haven't used the VRII but it is very similar. This is a great lens for casual shooting and I love it. Not as sharp as a "pro" lens but that's the price you pay for a light, relatively inexpensive lens with a big zoom range. I do a surprising amount of shooting at 18-24mm so you may find the 24-120 limiting in that respect. However if you are going FX in the future and will be getting the 12-24 in the near future (I use a Tokina 12-24 quite a bit) then the 24-120 may be the better choice. If you don't want to change lenses a lot go with the 18-200. Another thing - the 18-200 can always be sold later for a pretty good portion of what you paid for it.
The Image Doctors just posted a podcast with a review of the 24-120, and a review is also available on their blog. Check them out! I listen to every podcast - great stuff.
I have a D700 but just bought a D7000 because there are definite advantages to having both. I wouldn't limit my self to fx only because you plan to have an fx body at some point. 24 isn't very wide on dx. Most dx shooters like to have 18 on their, do I dare say it after my tongue in cheek post, walk around. The kit lens isn't bad. I'll probably keep it just for the reason that it's got nice range. Of course, the 18-200 has better range, and VR II. I would have been happier to see it bundled for a little more money. Anyway you go, you are gonna love the 7000!
In light of your migrating away from DX I don't have a solid recommendation for you. I'm sticking with DX, and find the 18-200 to be the ideal travel lens. When I want to go light it's that one lens on a camera, and I'm very happy with the results. If you do go FX but keep your D7000 as a second camera, the D7000 and 18-200 would be a better travel combo than anything you could have on an FX camera (unless you don't mind carrying a lot more size and weight).
I think you should seriously consider the 16-85 VR for an all around lens. Extremely versatile and very sharp across the range. 24mm on DX is just not wide enough to compose dramatic compositions, but it is perfect for Fx. I bought one last spring and love it - much more than when I had a 18-200
Albert J Valentino Nikonian Moderator Emeritus Vantage Point Images Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography
I agree that 24mm on DX is not wide enough. I use my 24-70 on D300, and always feel that way. If you do not go for FX in 1-2 years, it is better to get 18-200, which is more useful focal lengths this lense will cover.
Not trying to multiply your options here but if you are considering the 18-200, why not the 18-105 kit lens? It is actually very good and I would guess would produce, on average, sharper images than the 18-200. If you don't need the 105 to 200mm range that much, this lens may be a good intermediary on your way to FX. It represents good value for the money. Peter
Didn't see the 28-300 mentioned. I've read that the new 24-120 is a great upgrade from the previous. The 28-300 (about the same as the 18-200 on DX) gives you just that on the FX and 42-450 on DX. I just got one and it is very heavy and big but a super lens on my D700.
Definitely the 18-200 VRII. If you have a look at the MTF graphs and the reviews, its about the best of the DX lenses that are avaiable, including the 18-105 and 18-135. The only lens that I think beats it on the shaprness level is the 16-85 but that's a fairly limited lens in terms of a general walk-around lens.
I have both the 18-200mm VR and VRII versions and the VRII version is just a tad sharper where the VR version was soft.
>From all the reviews I've read the *new* 24-120 is a sharper >lens than an 18-200 but compare the price difference. > >I own an 18-200 and if I go FX I'll sell it. No big deal. >I sometimes think half the people on this forum own an 18-200 >based on the comments I see.
You can add me to the list. I love my 18-200 VR. I travel a lot by car and carry my camera. The 18-200 in on it 90% of the time.
Doesn't make a lot of sense. You haven't even received your DX body and already you're planning your lens purchases for your FX future? If you're like many people, it is likely you'll be keeping your body for a good 2-3+ years before upgrading- so why base your purchasing decision on a move that still might be a few years away?
>Doesn't make a lot of sense. You haven't even received your >DX body and already you're planning your lens purchases for >your FX future? If you're like many people, it is likely >you'll be keeping your body for a good 2-3+ years before >upgrading- so why base your purchasing decision on a move that >still might be a few years away?
After all this is a very good point. But good lenses are expensive. FX will be for now and it will probably be the 18-200. My only concern is if the constant f4 on the 24-120 is a lot more flexible as far as the low light conditions.
I presume your comments on FX imply you understand owning DX and FX is usually far better than owning FX only As already mentioned 24mm is not very wide on DX - the 18-200 has very good (some would say outstanding) optics for the money, and should hold it's value well if you ever trade it. Without wishing to start a flame Nikon's MTF show the 18-200 on DX as having better sharpness and resolution wide open than the new 24-120 on DX though due to different wide open apertures this is a part apples and oranges comparison. Build quality is another issue. I think there is no better all round travel combination than DX and the 18-200. Going further 16 MP and the 24-120 canl deliver better sharpness and resolution than the 24-120 on 12 MP FX - which is probably why you opted for the D7000. Although I have FX, 14-24, 16-35 24-70 and 70-200 I would not part with my 18-200 as it is such a useful all round lens.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.