Help Choosing a Nikon Lens.

[GoGoSamGo]

So I'm looking around to try and find the first lens to purchase for my Nikon D40. Even though this camera is still on it's way and will be here by the end of this week, I want to have a goal of having another lens aside from the kit one. I've narrowed it down to 3 choices.

Nikon 55-200 mm vr $249.99

Nikon 70-300 mm vr $529.99

Nikon 18-200 mm vr $749.99


I've read many reviews and I know that the 18-200 has a lot of good things said about it, but the only thing is that, I'm a college student (which means very low on $ most of the times). If I want to get the 55-200 I could probably get that one by this month. If I wanted to get the 70-300 (while all are close, I'm leaning towards this one the most) in the next 2-3 months. As for the 18-200 that would be anywhere between a 5-6 month month wait. I'm trying to be patient and wanting to get the best lens I can get, that's why I'm not quick to jump the gun and just go after the 55-200 just because I could have it now. So any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated

[Abstract]

Get the one you want most.

[GoGoSamGo]

Get the one you want most.

Well I like all three, but like I said I'm slightly leaning towards the 70-300. The only reason I ask for opinions though is due to the fact of not have exactly a lot of money to be gambling around :-/. I really don't know if the 70-300 is worth more than 2x the amount of the 55-200, and then the 18-200 being 3x more than it. Really I just want to know what's the best way to invest my money on a lens that will last me at least a year until I might then possibly consider upgrading again. After the lens I want to get some filters too. Funny signature by the way, I'm really not a Kobe fan, T-mac is the man though :).

[Spectrum]

My advice is to wait until you've played with and learned how to effectively use both the camera you have bought and the 18-55 lens that comes with it. You'll then get a feel for what aspects (if any) you are limited by your equipment.

You might decide you need a fast low light lens for indoors (i.e Sigma 30mm/f1.4).

Or an ultra wideangle like the Sigma 10-20.

Or you might decide that you want ultimate versatility (zoom-wise) and will plump for the 18-200.

This flexibility is the beauty of D-SLR system - you buy what you actually need.

I got my D70 with the 18-70, and was happy using it for over a year, as I learned to master the camera as a tool - it has a great range for most standard photography, and a relativley fast aperture. Recently I purchased the 70-300VR for one thing: cheapish entry into wildlife photography. (You can now get the 70-300VR for under $500 from B&H by the way.)

However, if you really feel like you need more zoom flexibility from the start, I'd suggest getting the 55-200VR. It is a hard to beat deal for $250. Together with the 18-55, it will likely match the quality of the 18-200 for significantly less $$$ (albeit with slightly less convenience).

[IscariotJ]

The 70-300 is a great lens, but it does tend to upset the balance of the D40 somewhat. I'd imagine the 55-200 better suited, and from what I've read, it doesn't seem to suffer from the amount of vignetting that the 18-200 does.

I know you didn't mention it, but, I tend to use the 18-135 on my D40 as a walk-around lens.

[Veritas&Equitas]

Get the 55-200vr. Especially being a college student, the 70-300 just isn't worth 2x the price, IMO. I have the 55-200vr and I love it. And with my bank account, it's all I could afford right now, but I couldn't be happier, pairing it with my D50.

[Clix Pix]

I haven't seen the 55-200mm VR but I would recommend that for now. First, it's reasonably priced and secondly, it will do the job for you as you're learning your way around a DSLR. It pairs nicely with the 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the camera, so you will have a full range between 18mm - 200mm with which to work. After that the next purchase you will probably want to make would be a faster lens, one for shooting in low light situations. I am told Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 works very nicely with the D40 because it has the HSM (internal motor) and that's what is needed for autofocusing with that camera. Apparently right now the 30mm f/1.4 is in short supply and high demand....

Further down the road after you've had the chance to really explore the possibilities of shooting with a DSLR you may then be ready to move on to something else: other camera body, other lenses....

[Westside guy]

Given the circumstances, I'd probably get the 55-200. If you get the 70-300 you'll have a gap between 55 and 70. You probably think it won't matter; but I bet you'll find situations where you wish you had it.

The 18-200 is very nice - I love it - but it's a lot of money to partially replace a range you've already got covered.

[almightyshoe]

I have the 70-300; I like it, but its nothing to write home about. But I do most of my stuff with the thrifty-fifty.

[The Past]

If your are not looking for taking pictures of wild animals that you can not get close to or that close-up head shot of that rare grasshopper, then do not worry about the focal length at the 300s for now.

Same logic, if you will be shooting a lot of portraits, then you will not be served well by 70 at the lower end. Sometimes, you just want to get a bit closer.

If you will be doing more middle of the road photography, make sure you get at least one prime lens (and I would recommend the 50mm 1.8D as it is excellent and a steal at $130). I presume it will work with the D40. Then add the 55-200 because you will not believe how useful VR is at 200. Of course, the kit lens will serve the wide-angle purpose for you.

All this assumes that you will change lenses and do not mind moving back and forth yourself a bit (instead of turning the lens) to compose a shot the way you desire. So, it comes down to what you will be shooting and how open you are to taking advantage of the lens change option that SLR will give you (while point-and-shoot will not).

[Westside guy]

If you will be doing more middle of the road photography, make sure you get at least one prime lens (and I would recommend the 50mm 1.8D as it is excellent and a steal at $130). I presume it will work with the D40.

Actually, this prime (and I think all others) will require manual focus on the D40.

I'd hold off purchasing any primes until Nikon updates them to AF-S (lenses w/ internal motors). That might happen very soon.

[job]

I'd hold off purchasing any primes until Nikon updates them to AF-S (lenses w/ internal motors). That might happen very soon.

Do tell...

Any thoughts/ideas?

[IscariotJ]

Do tell...

Any thoughts/ideas?

From what I've read, Nikon have a press conference on the 10th May, and some sites are speculating that it could mean the launch of new lenses. I'm assuming this is what Westside Guy is referring to.

[patrick0brien]

-GoGoSamGo

I'd highly recommend the 18-200, damn fine superzoom all-purpose lens, and caution you about the 70-300 as you will suffer contrast issues much above 200mm. For those ranges you'd need a larger objective like that on the 200mm, 300mm, 80-400mm, and 200-400mm to collect more light.

[Westside guy]

Do tell...

Any thoughts/ideas?

I'm channeling Thom Hogan there ; plus there is some well-connected Spanish photographer that's been saying the same thing - a bunch of new lenses in spring 2007. Can't remember if I saw that on dpreview.com or on Nikonians.

In any case, they certainly do seem overdue...

[fall3n]

Is there 2 versions of the 18-200mm? Because I saw a deal at London drugs that was the D40 + 18-55mm and 18-200mm for $950 can, I'm thinking I should jump on this ASAP as this is what I want, just don't exactly have the funds.

[job]

I'd highly recommend the 18-200, damn fine superzoom all-purpose lens, and caution you about the 70-300 as you will suffer contrast issues much above 200mm. For those ranges you'd need a larger objective like that on the 200mm, 300mm, 80-400mm, and 200-400mm to collect more light.

Is the 70-300 that bad? I recall seeing decent reviews for it.

I'm channeling Thom Hogan there ; plus there is some well-connected Spanish photographer that's been saying the same thing - a bunch of new lenses in spring 2007. Can't remember if I saw that on dpreview.com or on Nikonians.

In any case, they certainly do seem overdue...

From what I've read, Nikon have a press conference on the 10th May, and some sites are speculating that it could mean the launch of new lenses. I'm assuming this is what Westside Guy is referring to.

Gotcha, thanks guys.

[GoGoSamGo]

Thanks for all the quick responses guys/gals. Wow I really didn't think I was going to get as many people to say the 55-200 as it did. A lot of the points made were great, espically that it would be a good pair with the Kit Lens (sadly to say that never really crossed my mind.....ya I'm that new to this game). I think I'm probably going to go for the 55-200 which would also be the best cost efficient for me too. Thanks again for all the help!

[IscariotJ]

Is the 70-300 that bad? I recall seeing decent reviews for it.

No, it isn't that bad. Have a look through the picture of the day thread, especially freebooter's ( D40 + 70-300 ). I've the 18-135, 18-200 and the 70-300. The 18-200 is very good lens, but only till a certain point. The 18-200 used to live on my camera, however, just lately, I've started using the 18-135 and the 70-300.

If Nikon come out with the a VR version of the 18-135.....

[Trogloxene]

I use non-Nikon lens on my D100 and I'm very happy with them. Non-Nikon is way cheaper. I have a Sigma 70-300 for telephoto and mico, and 20-40 for wide angle. This covers pretty much all my needs. Two professional photographers helped me pick these lens out. One was a National Geographic photographer, the other a photographer for the Chargers football team; they knew their stuff.

-T

[Plymouthbreezer]

...I have a Sigma 70-300 for telephoto and mico...
I also use a Sigma 70-300 with my Nikon, and I've had awesome results. My kit lens usually clads my D70s, but for sporting events and such, the Sigma works out well.

But by summer, I'm looking to pick up a nice prime for low light shooting, concerts, etc...

[volvoben]

My advice is to wait until you've played with and learned how to effectively use both the camera you have bought and the 18-55 lens that comes with it. You'll then get a feel for what aspects (if any) you are limited by your equipment.

You might decide you need a fast low light lens for indoors (i.e Sigma 30mm/f1.4).

Or an ultra wideangle like the Sigma 10-20.

Or you might decide that you want ultimate versatility (zoom-wise) and will plump for the 18-200.

This flexibility is the beauty of D-SLR system - you buy what you actually need.

I got my D70 with the 18-70, and was happy using it for over a year, as I learned to master the camera as a tool - it has a great range for most standard photography, and a relativley fast aperture. Recently I purchased the 70-300VR for one thing: cheapish entry into wildlife photography. (You can now get the 70-300VR for under $500 from B&H by the way.)

However, if you really feel like you need more zoom flexibility from the start, I'd suggest getting the 55-200VR. It is a hard to beat deal for $250. Together with the 18-55, it will likely match the quality of the 18-200 for significantly less $$$ (albeit with slightly less convenience).

I agree with this post entirely. I got the 18-70 with my D70 way back when, great lens (doesn't feel as nice/smooth as the 17-55 or many older nikkors, but it feels much better than the 18-55) for about 50% of my photos, but I knew I'd want something wider. Unfortunately at the time that meant the nikkor 12-24 for $1k+ or nothing, so I bought a cheap zoom, the old push/pull 70-210 (screw focusing, won't work on D40) for fun and the occasional 'i don't have binoculars but wonder what that is in the distance' shots. My film setup was an F3 with 20mm f/3.5 75% of the time, and a 28-85 the rest, so I knew what I really wanted was something wide. Eventually I got the Sigma 10-20mm and am very happy with it (the tokina felt a bit nicer but that 10mm setting is a pretty big difference from 12).

If you haven't done enough photography to already know that you'll want a long lens, I'd just tool around with the kit lens for a while and notice whether you wish it zoomed in or out more...or if you'd prefer some filters or a tripod, ball head, speedlight, bag, memory, software, monitor, remote release, storage etc etc etc

[GoGoSamGo]

If you haven't done enough photography to already know that you'll want a long lens, I'd just tool around with the kit lens for a while and notice whether you wish it zoomed in or out more...or if you'd prefer some filters or a tripod, ball head, speedlight, bag, memory, software, monitor, remote release, storage etc etc etc

No I completely agree, I need to get as good as I can with the kit lens before anything, but from trying a few different D40s with the kit lens, I've already noticed I will need a longer range zoom for the things I am planning on shooting. As for the extras, the package I purchased came with a Nikon case, memory card, and I just purchased a Nikon remote and CS3 Photoshop, but filters are something that really interest me, but sadly I don't know very much about them than the the basics :-/

[compuwar]

Thanks for all the quick responses guys/gals. Wow I really didn't think I was going to get as many people to say the 55-200 as it did. A lot of the points made were great, espically that it would be a good pair with the Kit Lens (sadly to say that never really crossed my mind.....ya I'm that new to this game). I think I'm probably going to go for the 55-200 which would also be the best cost efficient for me too. Thanks again for all the help!

The extra 100mm for the 300mms may be more what you want for your shooting, I wouldn't worry about the "gap," there's an over-done "I can cover everything" thing that happens now we have all these super zooms. However, many, many photographers tend to shoot their zooms at one extreme or the other, or both extremes. For lots of shooting, more reach is significantly more important than having to take a couple of steps back.

[freebooter]

-GoGoSamGo

I'd highly recommend the 18-200, damn fine superzoom all-purpose lens, and caution you about the 70-300 as you will suffer contrast issues much above 200mm. For those ranges you'd need a larger objective like that on the 200mm, 300mm, 80-400mm, and 200-400mm to collect more light.

I like my 70-300 VR. The contrast is seems good to me and if I want more I could fiddle with the camera settings or later say, "Hello post-processing!" :) It's just about the easiest thing to adjust. I took this yesterday with the 70-300: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204316&page=236 picture #5896
It would be nice to have a wider aperture, but price and weight sky-rocket. As it is, the 70-300 is a good compromise for amateur use.

The 18-200 range is great, but the price is steep considering the reputed medium quality of the output. (I'm just going by the reviews, of course.)

I'd say keep the kit lens and get the 70-300 because that extra 100mm reach does make a big difference--much better bokeh, tighter framing, etc.

If weight/size is a concern, however, then choose the 55-200mm. It looks sweet.

If you really hate to change lenses or you are always traveling, then get 18-200mm.

If you're worried about the price differences, maybe waiting until you can afford what you really want might be a good idea.

Also, keep in mind that the equipment is only part of the quality-photo equation.

[Westside guy]

The 18-200 range is great, but the price is steep considering the reputed medium quality of the output. (I'm just going by the reviews, of course.)

That's odd - before I bought mine I read reviews ad nauseum - pretty much everyone gushed over the quality.

It is a consumer lens of course - but so are all of these.

[IscariotJ]

That's odd - before I bought mine I read reviews ad nauseum - pretty much everyone gushed over the quality.

It is a consumer lens of course - but so are all of these.

I've noticed, that as the 18-200 becomes more available there are more people "moaning", especially over on dpreview, about the IQ of the 18-200, and how it doesn't compare to the 70-300. There are also quite a few threads, saying how the 70-300 holds it own against the dearer Nikkor zooms.

I have both, and find that, while it is a good lens, the 18-200 doesn't appear to be as sharp as the 70-300. I'm beginning to wonder, if some of this is due to where each 18-200 is manufactured ( there are two factories churning them, apparently ).

[Westside guy]

I have both, and find that, while it is a good lens, the 18-200 doesn't appear to be as sharp as the 70-300. I'm beginning to wonder, if some of this is due to where each 18-200 is manufactured ( there are two factories churning them, apparently ).

I have the previous iteration of the 70-300 (ED, non-VR unfortunately). That seems to be a decent lens, but I find I'm not using it much (and am planning to sell it).

Given the lag in supply of the 18-200, I guess it wouldn't be a huge surprise if quality was somewhat variable. I know I'm happy with mine though. :D Compared to my original 18-70 it is at least as good over that range (and that was certainly a good lens). But it'd be interesting to see some hand-held test shots at, say, 100, 150 and 200 between the 70-300 VR and the 18-200 VR on the same body.

[GoGoSamGo]

I like my 70-300 VR. The contrast is seems good to me and if I want more I could fiddle with the camera settings or later say, "Hello post-processing!" :) It's just about the easiest thing to adjust. I took this yesterday with the 70-300: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204316&page=236 picture #5896
It would be nice to have a wider aperture, but price and weight sky-rocket. As it is, the 70-300 is a good compromise for amateur use.

The 18-200 range is great, but the price is steep considering the reputed medium quality of the output. (I'm just going by the reviews, of course.)

I'd say keep the kit lens and get the 70-300 because that extra 100mm reach does make a big difference--much better bokeh, tighter framing, etc.

If weight/size is a concern, however, then choose the 55-200mm. It looks sweet.

If you really hate to change lenses or you are always traveling, then get 18-200mm.

If you're worried about the price differences, maybe waiting until you can afford what you really want might be a good idea.

Also, keep in mind that the equipment is only part of the quality-photo equation.

Wow that is one amazing picture. I talked to a few local camera stores around here, a few of the workers recommended 70-300 while others said just go for the 55-200 :confused: I think I'll wait it out a month or two and then just try both lenses for myself and decide which would be the better one to stick with.

[Eduardo1971]

I recently bought the Nikon D80 with the 18-200 VR DX Nikkor lens. It is a great combination as the Nikkor lens is very versatile; it is pricey but in the long run worth it.

[IscariotJ]

But it'd be interesting to see some hand-held test shots at, say, 100, 150 and 200 between the 70-300 VR and the 18-200 VR on the same body.

I'll see what I can do....

( Might be a while, though :( )

[freebooter]

That's odd - before I bought mine I read reviews ad nauseum - pretty much everyone gushed over the quality.

It is a consumer lens of course - but so are all of these.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But, perhaps it is a relative thing. That is, compared to other 18-200mm lenses, the Nikon is fantastic. Hence the many positive reviews. The reviews I was thinking of--like the DPReview ones mentioned by another poster--compared it to some other, less ambitious, lenses.

[tibbon]

I'd go with the 18-200VR lens. Sigma also has one of similar focal length out, but I haven't looked at it much. I have the 18-200 and I'm REALLY happy with it. It's not as sharp as a fixed lens with manual focus... but just the fact that you almost never have to change the lens is amazing. I dont' consider it an unsharp lens at all.

I also keep around a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor and I'm looking into the 30mm 1.4 Sigma and a 10-20mm.

[Westside guy]

I'll see what I can do....

( Might be a while, though :( )

That's fine, and it'll be great whenever you get the chance. Thanks!

I'm in no hurry since I've obviously made my purchasing decision already. :D But it would be nice to see.

[Westside guy]

I'd go with the 18-200VR lens. Sigma also has one of similar focal length out, but I haven't looked at it much. I have the 18-200 and I'm REALLY happy with it. It's not as sharp as a fixed lens with manual focus... but just the fact that you almost never have to change the lens is amazing. I dont' consider it an unsharp lens at all.

I definitely can see the difference between photos taken using my 35mm f/2 prime versus with my 18-200mm lens. :D The 18-200 takes great photos IMHO, and the convenience is wonderful - but the 35mm prime can be cut yourself sharp.

I really want to get an 85mm prime; but I'm waiting to see if Nikon updates it soon (not to mention that I've pretty much blown my photo allowance for a while...).

[ChrisA]

So I'm looking around to try and find the first lens to purchase for my Nikon D40.

Don't buy anything at all. Seriously.

First shoot about 1,000 frames then go through your images and maybe your notes and figure out what is missing. What images were you NOT able to capture with the kit lens. Then get the lens that would have gotten you those missing images.

I notice your selection of lenses pretty much follows what we see from all beginners. They always assume they will need a long telephoto zoom and they always go for those slow F/5.6 lenses. Maybe this is what you will want. but maybe not. Perhaps you will find a 12-24mm zoom fits you better or very likey you might want something that works at a wider f-stop then your kit lens has. You will not know until after you shoot quite a few frames

[ChrisA]

I definitely can see the difference between photos taken using my 35mm f/2 prime versus with my 18-200mm lens......
I really want to get an 85mm prime; but I'm waiting to see if Nikon updates it soon.....

Yes the 35 and 85 are great. I have a 50 f/1.4 and use it a lot. I have the 85 also. These lenses are a great argument for why people should NOT buy the D40. The D40 only works with AF-S lenses so you are stuck, unable to take advantage on Nikon's best and most cost effective optics.

[compuwar]

Yes the 35 and 85 are great. I have a 50 f/1.4 and use it a lot. I have the 85 also. These lenses are a great argument for why people should NOT buy the D40. The D40 only works with AF-S lenses so you are stuck, unable to take advantage on Nikon's best and most cost effective optics.

...in auto-focus mode...

[job]

...in auto-focus mode...

Yep, it's actually pretty fun to try and focus a 50mm prime on a D40.

Makes it all the more exciting when the shot you wanted turns out. :)

[Clix Pix]

Yes the 35 and 85 are great. I have a 50 f/1.4 and use it a lot. I have the 85 also. These lenses are a great argument for why people should NOT buy the D40. The D40 only works with AF-S lenses so you are stuck, unable to take advantage on Nikon's best and most cost effective optics.

This is incorrect. One can use ANY Nikon lens with the D40; it's just that with lenses that are not AF-S one has to manually focus. A big deal? Not necessarily....

The 35mm f/2, the 45P, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4.....all fun to use on the D40!

[Westside guy]

This is incorrect. One can use ANY Nikon lens with the D40; it's just that with lenses that are not AF-S one has to manually focus. A big deal? Not necessarily....

The 35mm f/2, the 45P, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4.....all fun to use on the D40!

I have manually focussed with the 35mm, and you're right it's not a big deal - but on my D70 that lens is very fast (and accurate) to auto-focus as well.

I think when I do get the 85mm, I'll be going for the f/1.8 - I don't have the budget for the f/1.4 really.

[Clix Pix]

I have manually focussed with the 35mm, and you're right it's not a big deal - but on my D70 that lens is very fast (and accurate) to auto-focus as well.

Oh, absolutely -- I love the 35mm's quick autofocus on my other cameras....but my point here was to correct the misinformation that was being spread about the D40. One CAN use various lenses on that camera body, but the only ones which will autofocus are the AF-S ones. For some people that might be a serious drawback, but for others it might not be. Much depends upon the photographer and why he/she has chosen the D40 in the first place. The targeted audience for that camera is those moving up from P&S cameras, those who are not likely to invest in a whole bunch of other lenses but who will stick one lens on the camera (either the kit lens or the 18-200mm VR) and be done with it. For those users, the whole lens thing is a moot point. There are others who purchase the D40 who may also have other Nikon bodies and lenses and for whom the D40 is meant as a substitute for a P&S and for whom the idea of needing to manually focus many lenses isn't a big deal.

If someone wants to use the D40 as their only camera, as their substitute for a P&S and who doesn't care about moving beyond family snapshots, the lens situation isn't a big deal. If someone is purchasing the D40 as their first DSLR with the intention of learning photography and becoming serious about it, wants the option of being able to pick up other lenses inexpensively as they learn and grow into this, then the D40 is probably not the best choice. The D50, D70, D70s or D80 would actually fit their needs better.

[Westside guy]

Oh, absolutely -- I love the 35mm's quick autofocus on my other cameras....but my point here was to correct the misinformation that was being spread about the D40.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to contradict what you said - that wasn't my intention at all. I was actually just drifting off-topic, mentioning how well the autofocus works as just another reason I like that lens. :)

[volvoben]

This is incorrect. One can use ANY Nikon lens with the D40; it's just that with lenses that are not AF-S one has to manually focus. A big deal? Not necessarily....

The 35mm f/2, the 45P, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4.....all fun to use on the D40!

true, true, however if you've ever tried to focus in the tiny viewfinders of any consumer dslr you'll realize it's damn near impossible. Luckily the little green 'in focus' light still lights on the bottom left, so you can pretend you're the autofocus motor and hunt around for the right spot, but this isn't exactly 'fun' in most cases. the enormous viewfinder and a nice choice of focusing screens on my old F3 made it easy to focus where I wanted quickly, but focusing via 'manual autofocus' is an unrelated activity. It's certainly easier than an older ai etc. lens that won't meter on the D40, but if i had a D40 I doubt i'd bother with screw focusing lenses.

[IscariotJ]

OK, I've done a "test" of the 18-200VR and the 70-300VR, at 100/150/200, and 300 ( or as near to each one as I could get ).

I'll apologise for the subject ( erm, a tree and some sky ), but I thought the sky would be of use to show up any signs of vingetting, and the tree for sharpness. They pictures have been take on a D80, -0.7 exposure, in A-mode ( Exif is available on each ). They've been imported straight into Lightroom, and then exported to JPEG. Other than being re-sized ( basically half, so I could get them under 5mb for Flickr ), there's been no PP done.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's something wrong with my 18-200, as I didn't think that it would display as much vignetting as it is ( if what I'm seeing is vignetting ), though I'm starting if it's just more suited to the D40.

Edit: The pictures don't seem to be displaying correctly, so have a look at the Set: http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/sets/72157600173142075/

70-300 @ 100mm
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945654/

70-300 @ 155mm
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945662/

70-300 @ 200mm
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945700/

70-300 @ 300mm ( OK, a bit unfair on the 18-200, but I thought I'd try and show what the lens could do at it's maximum )
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945714/

18-200 @ 105mm ( Ignore the black line down the left hand side, it's a window frame :( )
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945718/

18-200 @ 150mm
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482945722/

18-200 @ 200mm
http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/482948452/

[photobiker]

The 200mm lenses are equivalent to 300mm on a film camera, and the 300mm lens to a 450mm on film. Unless you have particular needs, you are unlikely to use focal lengths between 300 and 450mm very often, so I would forget about the 70-300 because it's not versatile enough. Starting at 70mm (105mm on film), even at the shorter focal, it's quite a long lens for everyday use.

For the rest, it all depends how you are going to use your camera and how you approach photography. An obvious choice for a casual shooter is to go with the 55-200 to complement your kit lens. It's a good all-around lens and it's damn cheap for a Nikon-brand, especially with VR.

If you are planning to get more serious later about photography, I'd go with the 18-200 VR. I have it, as well as a collection of other pro lenses, and I love it. It's probably the best travel lens money can buy. A consideration when traveling, especially in dusty places (deserts, polluted cities) or wet areas (tropical climate, waterfalls), is to avoid to swap lenses as much as possible. With a film camera, dust would only spoil one frame. With a digital camera, once a speck of dust gets on the sensor, you're screwed: you must photoshop it out of every single frame until you bring your camera for service.

Result: now, depending on what I'm going to shoot, I pack my camera bag with either a single 18-200 (+ occasionally an ultra-wide lens), or my collection of big and heavy pro lenses. If you are not planning on spending thousands of dollars on big glass, I promise you will be very happy with an excellent and very universal 18-200. Besides if one day you want to upgrade your camera, you will want to keep that lens - while the other two (18-55 and 55-200), I'm not so sure.

Hope this helps,
Pierre - http:www.photobiker.com

[Borg9]

As a professional photographer I feel compelled to tell you in terms of Nikon zoom lenses under the 200mm. There are only 2, maybe three that are worth spending money on. The Nikon 28-70mm EDIF AF and the 80-200mm EDIF AF. The third, if you're desperate for a wide angle zoom, is the 17-35mm EDIF AF.

And for the love of god don't ever let a Sigma lens touch your camera.

[seany916]

Go ahead and pick up the 18-200VR. You won't regret it. Pass on the other 2. Good luck finding one though.

Cheap lenses are not very good investments in the long run. 18-200 is the most flexible and it's a great lens.

After that, focus on being a better photographer and don't buy any more lenses for at least a year unless you really need it for special purposes. I personally prefer prime lenses, but this one is really good.

[freebooter]

And for the love of god don't ever let a Sigma lens touch your camera.

Snobbery!

[compuwar]

As a professional photographer I feel compelled to tell you in terms of Nikon zoom lenses under the 200mm. There are only 2, maybe three that are worth spending money on. The Nikon 28-70mm EDIF AF and the 80-200mm EDIF AF. The third, if you're desperate for a wide angle zoom, is the 17-35mm EDIF AF.

And for the love of god don't ever let a Sigma lens touch your camera.

As a professional (but not full-time) photographer, I call baloney.
I've seen lots and lots of fantastic shots from the 20-35mm, 35-70mm, 17-35mm, 70-200mm VR, and while it's not on my list of fantastic lenses, the 12-24mm DX.

As for Sigma, all the samples I've seen from the 10-20mm zoom show it to be a stellar lens. The 50-500mm is better than Nikon's 80-400VR by a visible margin on my samples of each as well as the samples I've seen from others. I've seen great shots from the Sigma 300/2.8 as well. I've got the Sigma 10-20mm on order, and I'm betting I'll sell as many, if not more shots from that than from my also-stellar Nikkor 20-35mm AFD, which isn't quite wide enough on an APS-C body (in my case the D2x.)