Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
18-105 or 18-200
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kevin8503" data-source="post: 20723" data-attributes="member: 6204"><p>Hi Glassman,</p><p></p><p>I'm glad you're asking about this, because I JUST went through this exact same question. I was upgrading from a D60 to a D90, and since I sold the D60 as a kit, the 18-55 VR went with it. I already had the 55-200 VR but though that maybe now would be a good time to sell the 55-200 and just go the 18-200 route. </p><p></p><p>Long story short, after playing with both lenses, this is what it comes down to: photo quality vs. convenience.</p><p></p><p>As it was said to me, the 18-200 is a "Jack of all trades, and a master of none". To be able to give you the full range from 18-200, Nikon had to sacrifice some image quality in the process. The 18-200, while a decent lens, has major corner sharpness fall-off; which was just too much for me, and I'm not even that serious of a hobbiest. In my opinion, for the money I would have dumped into the 18-200, I wouldn't be getting images I'd be satisfied with.</p><p></p><p>You'd be much better off going with the 18-105 VR; which is what I went with. Comparatively, the images are much better, and the fall-off is much less. You could go with a 18-55 and a 55-200, which would be the most cost effective and best image wise, but I love the 18-105 and 55-200 combo. The 55-105 overlap is nice, and you really won't be changing your lenses as much as you might think.</p><p></p><p>The new 55-300 or 70-300 is also an option outside of the 55-200, but I haven't used either.</p><p></p><p>However, none of these lenses are 2.8 lenses, which is my next direction. I would rather have saved a little more and gotten some good 2.8 glass, but I had nothing below 55 except for the Nikon 35 1.8. I'm eyeing the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II. Just waiting for a good sale, lol.</p><p></p><p>Lemme know if you have any other questions! Good luck! Let us know what you decide!</p><p></p><p>Kevin</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kevin8503, post: 20723, member: 6204"] Hi Glassman, I'm glad you're asking about this, because I JUST went through this exact same question. I was upgrading from a D60 to a D90, and since I sold the D60 as a kit, the 18-55 VR went with it. I already had the 55-200 VR but though that maybe now would be a good time to sell the 55-200 and just go the 18-200 route. Long story short, after playing with both lenses, this is what it comes down to: photo quality vs. convenience. As it was said to me, the 18-200 is a "Jack of all trades, and a master of none". To be able to give you the full range from 18-200, Nikon had to sacrifice some image quality in the process. The 18-200, while a decent lens, has major corner sharpness fall-off; which was just too much for me, and I'm not even that serious of a hobbiest. In my opinion, for the money I would have dumped into the 18-200, I wouldn't be getting images I'd be satisfied with. You'd be much better off going with the 18-105 VR; which is what I went with. Comparatively, the images are much better, and the fall-off is much less. You could go with a 18-55 and a 55-200, which would be the most cost effective and best image wise, but I love the 18-105 and 55-200 combo. The 55-105 overlap is nice, and you really won't be changing your lenses as much as you might think. The new 55-300 or 70-300 is also an option outside of the 55-200, but I haven't used either. However, none of these lenses are 2.8 lenses, which is my next direction. I would rather have saved a little more and gotten some good 2.8 glass, but I had nothing below 55 except for the Nikon 35 1.8. I'm eyeing the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II. Just waiting for a good sale, lol. Lemme know if you have any other questions! Good luck! Let us know what you decide! Kevin [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
18-105 or 18-200
Top