Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="westmill" data-source="post: 55273" data-attributes="member: 9330">Good build quality is not the same as good image quality.The 18-200 is a superzoom. As in all superzooms, there is a compromise in quality. Otherwise they would not bother to make all the lenses in between.As superzooms go, the Nikon isnt bad. Hardly great, but not bad. The centre is very good indeed at all focus lenghs, it drops a bit hereat the 200mm end though. The edges however are much lower and the corners are very soft, especialy above 50mm.The VR on the 18-200 is far far better than the one on the 18-105 though. The 18-200 is VR 2.Image quality wise, the 18-105 0r 18-135 and 55-200 offer a much better balanced performance.To be honnest, and in all fainess, most people never see there images other than on the screen and printing the odd A4s of there fave shots.In that case, you wouldnt realy see the differance anyway. As you can tell... an awfull lot of people love the 18-200.For a lot of people, its the only lens they will ever need. Also, this is just people opinions, but only you can decide what is right for you.This was my reasoning and is valid to me. Marcel makes a good valid case too and he is certainly not wrong here.Then as Geoffc also says... a prime back up is another idea, covering all angles. There are certainly no rights or wrongs here. Its all about personal choice and end usage.Hand on heart, I would have to say you are not me and you would get more use and enjoyment from the 18-200 probably !At least you can make a more inforemed decision now with all things taken into account.The good news is... there isnt a duff lens mentioned in this discussion. So whichever you decide, you will enjoy.</blockquote>

Verification