Need lens advice...asap!

You can't beat the so-called "superzooms" for convenience, but they simply do not match the image quality of lenses with shorter zoom ranges. They are convenience lenses, plain and simple. Only you can decide whether image quality or convenience is more important to you. Also, if you really want to shoot wildlife, then I can't imagine that you would be happy with a lens that limits you to 200mm on the long end.

 

Um...What gave you the idea this was the VR2 version of the lens?

I have this lens, it's my favourite "walking around" lens between the relatively small size and immense reach. For $450 you can't got wrong as long as it really is in excellent condition.

For wildlife I'd prefer my 70-200 2.8 VR1 for the extra 2 stops.

In terms of IQ, the 18-200 is quite good, the 70-200 is noticeably better but the 18-200 is good enough that it's hard to tell which lens was used at times.

 

If convenience is key, look at the Tamron 18-270 PZD (second generation). For the cost and size, an amazing lens. It has been in the Popular Photography holiday gift guide and gotten good reviews. It does get softer over 200. I use it as a walkaround lens for my Canon 7D.

 

There's also more than one way to skin a cat.

A quick Google suggests that it would cost around $500 to just get a second Nikon D5000 body.

Sure, this would add quite a bit of weight for a "walk around", but if you're ever going to want to go to Africa, you'll want to take at least two bodies ... same 'quick change' interest plus having a spare in case one breaks.



-hh

 

Internal Focusing

I've had one. It was a good lens and absolutely great for walking around all day and not having to carry anything else that wouldn't fit comfortably in my pockets (car shows, events, etc.).

Just go into it knowing that you'll never be able to point the camera downward without holding the zoom. It creeps worse than kudzu. The second version got a lock for 18mm but I don't know if they're any better (mine was a 1st gen. bought when they were released).

Despite that caveat, this is still the lens I recommend to everyone with a DX body who asks me "what lens should I get?" For the economical or casual DX shooter looking at Nikon lenses, this is "the one to rule them all," IMHO.

 

Losing 33% at the long end sucks for wildlife. Organize your trips better to shoot one subject at a time- the light's best only early and late-- good wildlife activity is also best in spurts and planned shots are better than grab shots. All of those are reasons for better photographs of each type, only scramble for a great opportunity, not any opportunity.

Shoot with the 70-300 at 200mm and see what you're getting into. Especially for birds, shorter sucks rocks.

Paul

 

If changing lenses is a problem then get another camera. You can find a used one in a nice price range. Shoot you could probably go with a D200 or D300 if you like that size.

http://www.adorama.com/US 496631.html
http://www.adorama.com/US 504380.html


18-200mm is kinda slow for what you want. Look for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8