18-105 or 18-200

Glassman

Senior Member
Well I'm looking to add a lens to my collection. While the 18-55 kit lens that came with my D3100 is good it is lacking the reach I'm after some times. I have been looking at the above mentioned lenses and just don't know which is the better choice for me. Esentially I'm wanting to replace my current lens with one of these and use the new lens for a general purpose walk-around lens. What is everyones opinion?
 

SPJ

Senior Member
I conduct approx 90% of my shots on 18 - 200 mm and would never be without it. The rest I do with a 10 - 20 wide angle.
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
I got my 18-200 with my D200 and now use it frequently on my D300. It is a versatile, great performing lens. I have used it from everything from landscapes to portraits, only drawback is it's a little slow at f3.5.
 

Ranie

Senior Member
Glassman - I have both before. Between the 2, I would go for the 18-105. In terms of Sharpness and IQ. I have not seen an 18-200 sharper than the 18-105. By the way, you're 18-55 (kit lens) is a very good lens already. Why dont you compliment it with the new 55-300 for more reach. IMHO
 

goz63

Senior Member
I love my 55-300 and my 18-105. They are great walk around lenses depending on what type of walking around you want to do. Will never give either of them up.
 

Glassman

Senior Member
I looked at at and thought about the 55-300 however I really prefer to keep just a single general purpose lens on the camera most of the time. I know there will be times when other lenses are better/perfered but what I am after in this particular lens something that will work for general photography that I can leave on the camera 90% of the time. However thank ya'll for the information, it has been helpful.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
If it's to leave on the camera 90% of the time, I'd definitely go with the 18-200. The 18 gives you a wide angle......the 200 gives you the reach. Now think of this, too: you have an 18-55 (there's your 18 covered). Add the 55-300mm and you'll have everything covered with the 2 lenses;from 18 to 300mm. Just an option to think about. And the 55-300 lens is much cheaper than the 18-200 lens by itself.
 

Kevin8503

New member
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
 
Top