Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lKoRTy" data-source="post: 172695" data-attributes="member: 15482">Thank you all for a quick reply! That's what I was afraid of - that people who know, would say that 18-200 is not worth getting <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> So I am certainly glad I've asked! I just assumed with it's a newer lens with VRII it does have good performance..As a follow up, would you even suggest going with 18-105? My initial plan was getting three lenses - micro, all around and telephoto. The all-around was supposed to go everywhere with me, like the beach. But if it's not worth the money quality wise, should I go the route Jimx7 went in &quot;Can I Go Home Now&quot; thread and get a micro, 18-55 and 55-300 (70-300)? Like I said for the all around, in the beach example, I would like to be able to take shots close and of someone in the water, without having to change the lenses. So I guess ultimately, what would be your suggestions for micro, all around and telephoto, or micro, telephoto and X? Price wise would prefer all three lenses under 2000. (if possible). And just for the sake of why not, throw in a wide-angle in there.Thanks again for quick replies, stopped me form pulling the trigger! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="lKoRTy, post: 172695, member: 15482"] Thank you all for a quick reply! That's what I was afraid of - that people who know, would say that 18-200 is not worth getting :) So I am certainly glad I've asked! I just assumed with it's a newer lens with VRII it does have good performance.. As a follow up, would you even suggest going with 18-105? My initial plan was getting three lenses - micro, all around and telephoto. The all-around was supposed to go everywhere with me, like the beach. But if it's not worth the money quality wise, should I go the route Jimx7 went in "Can I Go Home Now" thread and get a micro, 18-55 and 55-300 (70-300)? Like I said for the all around, in the beach example, I would like to be able to take shots close and of someone in the water, without having to change the lenses. So I guess ultimately, what would be your suggestions for micro, all around and telephoto, or micro, telephoto and X? Price wise would prefer all three lenses under 2000. (if possible). And just for the sake of why not, throw in a wide-angle in there. Thanks again for quick replies, stopped me form pulling the trigger! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification