I posted yesterday about what lens to get. If it were up to you which would you get 16-85, 18-105 or 18-200. I have the 18-55 now and want something with more zoom. FYI The price of the 18-105 is more in my price range.
#1. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Fri 02-Oct-09 02:18 AM
I have and use the 18-200, but if starting from an 18-55, I'd probably add none of the above and go for a 70-300 AFS VR. If, on the other hand, you're really trying to stick to one lens, the 18-200 is probably the best (if also most expensive) choice.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#2. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 0MEMcD Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007Fri 02-Oct-09 02:35 AM
I would also pick the 70-300mm VR.
I use a 17-55mm on my D200 as a walk around lens which has about the same range as your 18-55mm. If I need something longer I just change lenses. If you are looking for a one lens solution the 18-200mm VR would be the best choice. If you plan on adding the 70-300mm VR in the future, get the 16-85mm VR.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#3. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 0Fri 02-Oct-09 01:48 PM
Of the three you mentioned, I would choose the 18-200. I have one, and it stays on my camera almost all the time. It's great to have that much zoom range and such a versatile lens.
Others have suggested the 70-300VR, which is indeed a nice complement to the 18-55, if you want two lenses and don't mind changing them. That's a good option, and one worth considering.
I also have an 18-55 and 70-300, but most of the time I prefer to carry just one lens, and most of the time it's the 18-200.
Everybody wants something a little different from their set-up. That's why Nikon markets so many different lenses. If you want one lens that does a pretty good job in most situations, the 18-200 is a nice option. If you don't mind carrying two lenses, the 70-300 pairs up nicely with the lens you have.
#4. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 0Fri 02-Oct-09 06:31 PM
I'll add my vote for none of the above, especially given your budget. The 18-105 is not at all a significant change from what you already have.
AF-S 70-300 VR is your best choice, AF-S 55-200VR or Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro would be my 2nd choice. These will all provide a lot more bang for your buck.
You get the inconvenience of having to change lenses, but really a great advantage of an interchangeable lens camera is that you can choose a lens specialized for what you're shooting. A single lens solution negates that advantage, and forces you to pay extra for convenience, while living with inevitable compromises required to design a superzoom.
Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery
#5. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 4Fri 02-Oct-09 07:02 PM
>I'll add my vote for none of the above, especially given your
You may be right about this, Larry. Adding a 70-300VR would certainly increase the versatility of the whole kit more than a lens that only extends to 200mm. But...
>... a great advantage of an interchangeable lens camera is
>that you can choose a lens specialized for what you're
>shooting. A single lens solution negates that advantage, and
>forces you to pay extra for convenience...
I don't agree with this. Yes, a single-lens solution is a compromise that makes shooting more convenient by being able to carry just one lens that is very versatile. I do this all the time by carrying my 18-200, which I have with me today, and it's the only lens I'm carrying. But just because I'm not changing lenses all day doesn't negate the advantage of having interchangeable lenses. When I shoot basketball games I'll usually just carry one lens, but it's my 80-200 f2.8; when I shoot bands in clubs I'll just take one lens, but it's my 50mm f1.4; when I shoot track meets I'll just take one lens, but it's my 80-400VR.
There's something to be said for the convenience of just carrying one lens, but it doesn't have to be the same lens all the time. For me, having the 18-200 makes my camera so much more useful, because I take it with me even when I might not use it, just because it's easy to carry, and a photo opportunity might come up.
One advantage of a camera with interchangeable lenses is that sometimes I can mount a "one lens solution" that makes my camera much more convenient to carry and use. You say it "forces you to pay extra for convenience," but it's easily worth the price to me, and it doesn't seem like an unreasonable alternative for the OP to consider.
#6. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 5gez137 Registered since 30th Sep 2009Fri 02-Oct-09 07:43 PM
I am the OP and I went to a camera store today and tried out different lenses. These are my thoughts: 55-200mm I didn't like. 18-105mm I also didn't like and it took a long time to AF, 18-200mm nikon I loved, and I tried the tamron 18-270mm which I really liked. Now here is my dilemma: the 18-200mm is about 300 bucks more than the tamron. The tamron also has a 70 dollar rebate which makes the price less then 500 bucks. One draw back is the tamron has a 6.3 aperture at 270, but I would carry my 18-55 for low light situations, so it's a toss up. I really want to save the money(not rich)so I am leaning towards the tamron.
#7. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 6Fri 02-Oct-09 08:09 PM
The Tamron does seem to be the better value, as is often the case when comparing third-party lenses to Nikons. I have the 18-200 and really like it, but I've never tried the Tamron.
>... the tamron has a 6.3 aperture at 270, but I would
>carry my 18-55 for low light situations, so it's a toss up. I
>really want to save the money(not rich)so I am leaning towards
But I don't think the Tamron would have an aperture less wide than the 18-55 at 55mm, so your current lens really wouldn't give you any advantage in low-light situations. It's advantage is that it is smaller and lighter, and sometimes I use mine for just that reason.
You should post on the third-party lens forum that you are deciding between these two lenses and see what they think. You're more likely to find people there who would be familiar with the Tamron. It does seem like a reasonable and even attractive alternative to the Nikon, but not having used one, the only opinion I'll offer is to ask on the third partly lens forum.
#10. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 8Fri 02-Oct-09 10:17 PM | edited Fri 02-Oct-09 10:25 PM by MotoMannequin
Here's a focal length/aperture table from a review of the 18-270:
Focal length 18mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 100mm 200mm 270mm
Max aperture F3.5 F4.2 F4.5 F5.3 F5.6 F6.3 F6.3
Min aperture F22 F29 F29 F36 F36 F40 F40
The Tamron is f/3.5 @ 18mm and f/4.5 @ 50mm which means across the overlapping range of the 18-55, it's as fast or faster at every zoom. These lenses are really very close across that range, but the edge is to the Tamron so there's no reason to use your 18-55 for anything (unless you drop Tammy in a river, or have been needing a black-n-gold paperweight).
BTW search the 3rd party lens forum, there was a lengthy debate recently regarding Tamron 18-270 VC vs. Nikkor 70-300VR. You might guess I prefer the Nikkor, but you can get a feel for the many differing views on the subject in that thread.
Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery
#9. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 5
To a large extent, we agree.
I'm not saying that you have to carry multiple lenses to take advantage of an interchangeable lens camera. I'm saying that the main advantage of an interchangeable lens camera is that you can own multiple lenses that are specialized to a purpose.
Take my comments in context, and absolutely no offense to Randi, but this is a very common step we see from newcomers with their first SLR, who want to take advantage of the interchangeable lens, first by replacing the mid-range zoom with a mid-range zoom. I've been there myself. I say, the 18-200 "forces you to pay extra for convenience" and you say "but it's easily worth the price to me." But Randi says, he can't quite afford an 18-200, and so is considering an 18-105 to replace his 18-55.
I'm just trying to shake up that way of thinking, by saying, if you're willing to change lenses, you can do a lot more with your camera for a lot less money.
For those walking around reacting to whatever comes their way, 18-200 is an excellent choice. I think most people start this way, then "catch the bug" and begin to specialize (or even have multiple specializations). Like you, I have a tendency to be goal-oriented when I shoot, and I may choose to carry a single lens for my goal, or I may carry multiple lenses. I briefly owned an 18-200 and it was never a single lens solution for me. It's not long enough to shoot wildlife, and not wide enough for many of the landscapes I'd shoot. But those are my specializations, and of course YMMV.
Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery
#11. "RE: Which one?" | In response to Reply # 9Fri 02-Oct-09 11:00 PM
Yes, we're on the same page, Larry, and looking back at my comment, I shouldn't have started out by saying I disagreed with what you said. Rather, different people want different things from their lenses, and for someone like me, it's really worth the money to be able to travel light and just carry one lens that covers lots of situations as a "walkaround." There are lots of people who feel like I do, but then, there are also lots of people who always want absolutely the best image quality, and would cover that range with a 17-55 and 70-200.
I also agree with you that if you want the most versatility for the money, adding a 70-300VR to an 18-55 makes a lot of sense. It does mean carrying more around, and changing lenses, but as you point out, one of the advantages of a DSLR is that you can change lenses. I can see that some people would lean one way while others would go the other, and it's good to point out those options to people who inquire.