Need lens advice...asap!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rayjay86, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. rayjay86 macrumors 6502

    May 15, 2011
    Hi all,

    Just thought I'd put this out there quickly.

    Currently shooting with a Nikon D5000.
    Glass: Sigma 10-20mm, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, Nikkor 70-300mm VR

    It's getting cumbersome in the field to keep changing to my wide angle to get in landscapes and then back to the 70-300 to get wildlife shots. I'm seriously considering getting the Nikkor 18-200mm VRII. There is one listed online in the local classifieds for $450 with polarizing filter (don't really use it), hood and pouch, etc. in excellent condition.

    I listed my 70-300mm to see what I could get for it and someone offered me $500.

    Do you think this is a good deal? Has anyone else tried the 18-200mm? How do you like it? I'm not super artsy but I just like photography as a side hobby, as a result my budget is a poor student budget not a professional.

    Input is appreciated...I need to get back to to the seller (and my potential buyer) soon.


    This is the lens listed:

    Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

    Not sure what IF stands for?! Anyone? I am pretty sure this lens will work with my D5000.
  2. Phrasikleia macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2008
    Over there------->
    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.
  3. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    May 15, 2011
    By wildlife I meant just local stuff; birds, roos, occasional reptiles (if I'm that unlucky). The odds of me heading off to Africa for a safari are slim...and if I could afford that I'd just buy a new lens :p
  4. Oracle1729 macrumors 6502a

    Feb 4, 2009
    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.
  5. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    May 15, 2011
    As Phrasikleia pointed out, it's a convenience lens. I'm just tired of juggling my lenses in my lap or in a park trying to switch them from the wide angle to the zoom so I can grab a picture of a bird, then go back to the 35mm so I can walk around town snapping urban photography pics.

    I'll have a think on it but as you mentioned, $450 can't really go wrong with it. Somehow managing to sell the 70-300 for a profit as well. Bought it for $400 in Canada, selling for $500 in Aus :)
  6. MCAsan macrumors 601


    Jul 9, 2012
    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.
  7. -hh macrumors 68020


    Jul 17, 2001
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    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.

  8. codymac macrumors 6502

    Jun 12, 2009
    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.
  9. compuwar macrumors 601


    Oct 5, 2006
    Northern/Central VA
    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.

  10. mofunk macrumors 68020


    Aug 26, 2009

Share This Page