Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rick M" data-source="post: 53743" data-attributes="member: 4399">Smart decision! The 18-200 is a great lens, but you are wise to work on your technique and find your style first. I got back into photography about a year and a half ago, with the same D3100 and kit lens. I thought I needed a longer zoom to compliment it so I picked up a 55-200 and later on in the year the 70-300nikon vr. After awhile I found myself shooting mostly at the wide end, so I picked up a nikon 16-85 (I had originally lusted after the 18-200 also).A year later, out of curiosity, I compiled the data on my favorite or &quot;best&quot; 100 shots I had taken. 85% of my shots were taken at below 50mm, 50% of those at 16mm, only about 5% above 70mm. I really like my 70-300, but use it rarely. If I had bought the 18-200, I would have missed out on what has become my favorite focal lenght, 16mm. Based on the data, my next lens will be an ultra-wide.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rick M, post: 53743, member: 4399"] Smart decision! The 18-200 is a great lens, but you are wise to work on your technique and find your style first. I got back into photography about a year and a half ago, with the same D3100 and kit lens. I thought I needed a longer zoom to compliment it so I picked up a 55-200 and later on in the year the 70-300nikon vr. After awhile I found myself shooting mostly at the wide end, so I picked up a nikon 16-85 (I had originally lusted after the 18-200 also). A year later, out of curiosity, I compiled the data on my favorite or "best" 100 shots I had taken. 85% of my shots were taken at below 50mm, 50% of those at 16mm, only about 5% above 70mm. I really like my 70-300, but use it rarely. If I had bought the 18-200, I would have missed out on what has become my favorite focal lenght, 16mm. Based on the data, my next lens will be an ultra-wide. [/QUOTE]

Verification