what lens is better ??

Hi all i just want to ask wt is better .. 18-55+55-200 ?? or 18-150 ??

Re: wt is better ??

I have the 18-55mm and the 18-105mm, Really good lens. If you want more reach get the 55-200mm will be fine.

Re: wt is better ??

I use both on my d3100 - 18-55 for more general use. 55-200 usually when I'm doing portrait shots or trying to capture wildlife.

Having both would probably be the best option as you have that extra reach from the 55-200 than the 18-150

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Do you mean the 18-105? There is no 18-150

I think it must be 18-105mm. Using the other 2 would be best I think.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Don't rule out 18-55 + 55-300. You just might want the little bit of extra reach.

Mo'Men said:

Hi all i just want to ask wt is better .. 18-55+55-200 ?? or 18-150 ??

Click to expand...

These lenses in general have similar performance.

The main advantage of the Nikon 18-105mm VR is that it doesn't require frequent lens changing unlike the 18-55mm. The FL covers most of the general scenes that you'll likely be covering which makes it more ideal similar to the 16-85mm dx lens.

18-55mm and 55-200mm covers a longer focal length but you'll be bring two lenses instead of just one. Their mounts are also made of plastic from what I recall.

I agree, the 18-55mm is a great little lens, and is complemented well by the 55-200mm or the 55-300mm.
If you feel the need not to need such a long reach, but still a more everyday lens, then the 18-105mm may make a suitable alternative.

I'mm looking at complimenting my lens collection with this midrange walk about lens.
The other options include the 16-85mm, 18-200mm or 18-300mm, all of which come with a heftier price tag

I own all three (18-55, 18-105 and 55-200) and of those three the 18-105 handles over 90% of my shooting with aplomb! The 55-200 is a sweet lens but if I had it to do over again, I'd pony up the extra for the 55-300. Love my 18-105 though; it's a Jack of All Trades Master at None sort of deal and I wouldn't want to be without it. I don't know that any of these lenses are "better" than any other, they all have their place.

The 18-55 / 55-200 is an excellent combo that will give you very good results. If you have none of the lenses listed, and you're buying new, I'd choose the 18-105 simply for convenience, but I'd miss the reach of the 200 or 300. As for carrying 2 lenses versus one, the lenses are very light.

How about the Sigma 18-250mm OS - is that worth the money at all for general use?

I'd personally aim for either 18-105 or 18-135 if you don't need extra reach, and 18-70 and 70-300 if you do want that extra reach.

Usually from image quality point, two lenses covering the range will be better than single long zoom. So it is up to you whether you prefer convenience over quality.

Having said that, 18-55 may be bit limited. The 16-85 is a very good one albeit expensive one. Or if you prefer a cheaper option, Tamron has a 18-200 lens.

I have the 18-105 and have liked it through the years. That being said I am getting ready to sell it since I just got a new lens to play with.

I use the 18-200 on DX 100 % of the time ...true I could get +10% better quality if I used primes but I need to go from a group of 20 people to a big close up of a ring finger at a wedding ...change lens no chance ..its raining ...

I think a 18-105 & 55-300 would make a very nice DX lens kit. Buying refurbished or used lenses can save you lots of money too.

thanx guys for the infoooo ..

crashton said:

I think a 18-105 & 55-300 would make a very nice DX lens kit. Buying refurbished or used lenses can save you lots of money too.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't make sense getting 55-300 though, since its 52mm instead of that awk 67 of 18-105.

Different filter sizes are no big deal, at least to me. Buy a step ring & use one filter on both lenses. Easy. I believe the 55-300 uses a 58mm filter & a 70-300 uses a 67mm.