Keep 18-105 or Sell and get 18-200

[bbadalucco]

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.

 

[aaronw1986]

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.

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.

 

[luminosity]

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.

 

[dubels]

Option #2. Or some nice primes.

 

[Alasta]

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.

 

[steve-p]

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.

 

[luminosity]

But it's slooooow.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

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 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.

 

[ChrisA]

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.

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

 

[bbadalucco]

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.

 

[deep diver]

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.

 

[luminosity]

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.

 

[Ruahrc]

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

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.

 

[cyantist]

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..

 

[bbadalucco]

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.