Nikon 18-200 zoom or ?

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

My wife was shooting the D5100 with a cheap 18-200 off brand. She has decided to keep my D7000 and shoot it. That camera is to nice to use the cheap zoom on though. She shot with the 18-105 of it last week and the quality is fantastic but she really likes the longer zoom and does not want to change lenses while she is shooting. I am looking at getting her the 18-200 Nikon to put on the D7000. How is the quality of that lens? Comparable to the 18-105? Are there other super zooms on the market in other brands that can give the same IQ?

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I had an 18-200 for 2 years when the D7000 was my primary body. I liked it a lot as a walk around lens that could take care of just about any situation (except low light and macro). I used it on vacations and at many events where I needed max flexibility and did not want to carry an extra lens (or bag) and the results were always very acceptable.

 

[DraganDL]

Don't expect any wonders if you switch some of the "off brands", like, say, Tamron 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 for Nikon 18-200 AF-S 3.5-5.6. In some aspects, the thing would be even worse (barrel distortion at 18mm are MORE pronounced on Nikon's 18-200mm)... Sigma's 18-200mm is lagging behind both. However, what could be gained is already on the paper - the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 at the longest end, and, related to that, somewhat better AF results in the low light situations. But, at the huge price difference.

What I think worth considering is the full frame lens, like 28-200mm (AF-D or "G", maybe), since anyway, your wife is more up to telephoto end (so that the gap between 18mm and 28mm wouldn't be the issue here). These lenses (AF-D as well as the newer "G" type) are superior to aforementioned 3 lenses in terms of a sheer optical and build qualities and might be even more affordable nowadays.

 

[WayneF]

I really doubt the 18-200 will be as sharp. I have not used a 18-105, but it has a good reputation. I have had a 18-200, and got rid of it (only lens I ever got rid of). It takes pictures of course, superficially OK, good enough maybe, but it never thrilled me, always a little disappointed. At the time, I settled on a 16-85 as a good walk-about choice. An 11x do-all, be-all zoom may be versatile, and it is a choice, but it's not the way to bet for best image sharpness. I would suggest some comparison of good lens tests, like at Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

 

[DraganDL]

@WayneF: "I settled on a 16-85 as a good walk-about choice".
For who knows which time now, I am glad to confirm this - simply the best (alas! - the most expensive too) among Nikon's all-around zooms. Used it for a while with D5000 (thanks to one of my friends with whom I used to work in tandem - funerals, weddings, birthdays...). Brilliant lens.

 

[WayneF]

It's about impossible dreams...

24-70mm - 2.9 to 1 zoom
70-200mm - 2.85 to 1 zoom
16-85mm - 5.3 to 1 zoom
18-105mm - 5.8 to 1 zoom
18-200mm - 11.1 to 1 zoom

You pay your money and you take your choice.

 

[Geoffc]

My wife has used her 18-200 Nikkor since around 2008 and would sell the kids before that lens. In good light it's very good considering the range. It's not perfect but you can always get the shot with it. I had one until I went FX and still miss it for the D7100


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD