Should I swap my Tamron 17-50 + 55-200VR for 18-200 VR?

What do you guys think about replacing my Tamron 17-50 + Nikon 55-200 VR with the 18-200 VR (with possibly the 50mm f1.8 for lowlight)??

When I'm out and about, I'm starting to get pretty sick of swapping lenses all the time between my 17-50 and 55-200 VR. My other lenses are the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 105 VR, both of which I consider more to be specialty lenses which I don't typically use as a "walkaround" and as such, doesn't pose much of an issue in terms of having to swap lenses all the time. The 17-50 however often feels too short when going about and the 55-200 often feels too long, which has up until now, required constant lens changes. Now I'm thinking about the 18-200, but not if I have to sacrifice "significantly noticeable" sharpness.

I'm very much unsure about this because the reviews for the 18-200 VR seem to be all over the place. Some say the IQ is quite bad, falling short of the 18-55 + 55-200 combo, zoom creep, etc. Other reviews speak highly of its IQ and sharpness, no zoom creep etc. It seems user opinions are just as greatly varied as the reviews... and its really hard to determine the validity of these reviews when one says one thing and another says the complete opposite.

So I'd like to hear what you guys think about the 17-50 +55-200VR vs. the 18-200 VR. Do you think I will notice a drop in IQ if i went with the 18-200? Will I miss the f2.8 of the tamron? Will eventually getting a 50mm f1.8 compensate for the lack of f2.8 zoom?

Thanks all!

Makes sense... the f2.8 of the tamron probably provides anywhere from a half stop to maybe 1.5 stop advantage compared to the 18-200 at overlapping focal lengths, so the doubled shutter speed sounds about right.

I'd love to hear from you regarding how the image quality compares between the 17-50 and the 18-200 at the same focal lengths/apertures.

iBallz said:

I just bought the 17-50 2.8 today! I hope I like it as much as the reviewers. I have the 18-200 VR and just messing around in the house today I noticed the shutter speed was double with the Tamron 17-50 at the same focal lenghts.
The 10-20 is no contest. Need to trade that one in.

So the 18-200 may see less time on the D300

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea, Abstract. I'll definitely look into this, although I'm not quite sure another 20-25mm on the long end will provide enough reach for me to not have to swap to the 55-200 all the time, which is my current problem. Why can't Nikon make a 24-105 f4 VR? I'd be all over this lens if it existed (no, im not going to switch to Canon!)

Abstract said:

Your lenses are similar to mine, so I'll tell you how I feel.

Trade the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for either a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 or Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8. They're all in the same price, and give you more reach, overlapping with the 55-200 mm.

I personally like the combo you have. Unlike your Sigma 10-20 mm and Tamron 17-50 mm, I have the Tokina 12-24 mm and Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, and want the Nikon 55-200 mm as my next lens. You don't "need" the 17-50 mm because you already have the Sigma 10-20 mm, so a lens that starts from 20-something mm is an easy solution for your problem.

When I first went with Nikon, it was because I always intended to buy the 18-200 mm VR. However, I eventually went for higher quality lenses instead, and don't own a lens that doesn't have a constant, wide-open aperture. Now I'd never get the 18-200 mm unless I had money to blow. I think it's a useful lens, but it's not going to give me the performance that I have now.

Click to expand...