Keep 18-105 or Sell and get 18-200

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bbadalucco, Oct 11, 2009.

  1. bbadalucco macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #1
    Curious what everything thought of the Nikon 18-200 VR lens? I have the 18-105 that came with a D90 but was considering selling it and picking up the 18-200? Either that or I could keep it and get a 70-300 lens?

    Just looking for some thoughts to push me in the right direction.
     
  2. aaronw1986 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    #2
    What are you wanting to take pictures of? The 18-200 is a nice comprehensive range. However, for me since I like to capture wildlife, I'd prefer the longer range over convenience and less mm. I use the 18-105/70-300 combo.
     
  3. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #3
    The 18-200 is a middle of the road/mediocre lens. For what it is, it's okay. I'd much rather have a couple nice primes instead.
     
  4. dubels macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
  5. Alasta macrumors regular

    Alasta

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    #5
    How often do you find yourself missing shots because the 18-105mm doesn't have enough reach, and you don't have time to change lenses?

    I personally find that the 18-105mm is adequate for at least 90% of what I shoot, and the 55-200mm takes care of the rest, but there is no 'one size fits all' answer to questions like this.
     
  6. steve-p macrumors 68000

    steve-p

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Newbury, UK
    #6
    Depends what you want it for - I find I only ever use the 18-200 now but that's for travel photography where the need for convenience and the need to get a shot quickly with the minimum of fuss and without carrying too much gear outweighs absolute image quality. It's a very good lens for what it is, and very flexible. It's sharp enough on a D80. Chromatic aberration is fine. Geometric distortion could be improved, but it's no worse than other Nikon or Canon zooms with much smaller range that I have used in the past. VR works quite well in low light too. If you need/want to only carry one lens, it's a good choice IMO.
     
  7. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
  8. ManhattanPrjct macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #8
    I think this is what you have to ask yourself.

    I am not a reach photographer so personally I don't think it's worth spending $700 (or whatever it costs now) to buy a lens that for all intents and purposes doesn't "materially" improve your IQ or speed within the focal range you have now.

    For what it worth, this has been discussed quite a bit on the dpreview.com forums.
     
  9. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #9
    Depending on what you want to shoot, I'd say either "yes", "no" or "it depends"

    But one thing is pretty certain a "way slow" f/5.6 300mm lens will have rather limited application.

    What you need to tell everyone here is the problem you want to solve and a budget
     
  10. bbadalucco thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #10
    I just want the ability to have a greater zoom when I'm taking pictures of things further away (that I can't get to).

    Honestly, it seems like i should keep the 18-105 and look into something with a further reach as well.
     
  11. deep diver macrumors 65816

    deep diver

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #11
    I use the 18-200 exclusively. It is good, versatile, and convenient. If I were a pro, had a lot more money, or liked to change lenses I might get several other lenses. Things being what they are, I wouldn't give up mine.
     
  12. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #12
    Think about a used 180/2.8. They don't seem to be highly valued right now so they're going more cheaply than they're really worth. It's a truly remarkable lens.
     
  13. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #13
    I wouldn't necessarily say the 300mm f5.6 is way slow, f5.6 works plenty fine in a lot of types of outdoor lighting. And not everyone shooting long is doing motorsports or wildlife.
     
  14. cyantist macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    I loved mine for the simple reason that I could just leave it on the camera for 95% of my shots.. It's not a fast lens, but it's a great for travel.. I'd take it over the 18-105 any day for the extra reach.. But it really depends on your needs.. The 18-200 is a great 'all-around' lens, and that's what makes it so useful.. It's more a 'convenience' lens than anything else IMO..
     
  15. bbadalucco thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #15
    Everything I do for photography is just to learn and for fun...so having only a single lens would be nice...plus I'm not trying to sell my photos or anything.
     

Share This Page