18-200??
- Thread starter MeSess
- Start date
We just discussed this identical question yesterday and the day before.
http://nikonites.com/general-lenses/21247-need-advise-nikon-18-200mm-lens.html#axzz2wSNwFVRk
http://nikonites.com/general-lenses/21247-need-advise-nikon-18-200mm-lens.html#axzz2wSNwFVRk
HAHA sorry about that. Sometimes it's hard to find what I'm looking for because I don't know how to phrase the search. Thanks.
Not exactly too lazy but it is difficult to change the lens while on a hike.
Then you just answered your own question.
Kinda. I would like to have one lens that covers a nice range of focal lengths but is the 18-200 that lens? Is there a comparable lens?
Last edited:
As was talked about in the thread I pasted in there is nothing wrong with the 18-200mm lens as a lens goes. What you have to decide is whether the loss of image quality is worth it to you for having the convenience of a do-all lens.
To me, its not. I would pack a light camera bag and carry two lenses of high image quality rather than pack a single lens that covers a huge focal range. I would carry a wide angle lens and a long telephoto.
A lens that covers that much focal length is going to suffer in the image quality somewhere. It may be at ends of the focal range, or it may be in chromatic aberrations.
to get a lens with that kind of range and still be able to produce great IQ at all ranges would cost a fortune if it could even be built.
To me, its not. I would pack a light camera bag and carry two lenses of high image quality rather than pack a single lens that covers a huge focal range. I would carry a wide angle lens and a long telephoto.
A lens that covers that much focal length is going to suffer in the image quality somewhere. It may be at ends of the focal range, or it may be in chromatic aberrations.
to get a lens with that kind of range and still be able to produce great IQ at all ranges would cost a fortune if it could even be built.
I'm fine with carrying two lens and changing them but it sucks when you are out hiking or somewhere like a dirt path. Taking the lens off for any reason when it's dusty like that is really risky and I wish I didn't have to do it. At the same time I would rather have a good photo then the convenience.
Do some looking around on Flikr and view some images done with the 20-200mm/18-300mm and see if they meet your expectations. If they do then the lens would be a good choice.
The photos you take while on a hike may not be the same photos you expect to get as if you were on a specific photo mission.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Sometimes I go out just to get out. . . . a hike or whatever. Other times, I go on a specific photo outing where I know what I am going to shoot and what I am looking for. On those dedicated trips I take what I need and only what I need to get that particular type of shots. And I am concentrating on the photo shoot alone and not anything else.
So while just out to get away I do not expect the same quality from my photography as I would if I am on a mission to speak.
That makes a lot of sense and I would expect the pictures that I go out to get to be far better because I probably put more effort into composition and perspective etc. instead of just pointing and shooting a couple times at something I think might look good. I haven't gotten to the point where I'm actually going out and looking for certain shots though. Hopefully I start doing more of that soon.
I guess this is where I'm missing something. I agree with Mike's statement above. You're looking for targets of opportunity. You may get one; you may not; but at least you're getting out there. For that reason, weight and convenience is my top priority for a hike. I take my D5100 and the 18-55. Light and compact. Something my D800 and long lens is not.
Just discussing the benefits to having multiple lenses compared to one long lens. If I'm not mistaken, Mike prefers quality over convenience especially on an outing specifically for photography. Based on that I'm leaning more towards keeping both lenses and upgrading as I go. The 18-55 isnt the greatest lens but it will do for now. I started out questioning whether the 18-200 is better than the two lenses but if the quality is noticeably worse than the convenience isn't worth it. I'm usually on hikes and random walks where having one long lens would be worthwhile but I guess I'll just settle for sticking with a mid lens and finding the shots I can make work with that lens. I really should get a prime lens and force myself to compose without a zoom.
The 18-55 is actually an amazing lens and because it is inexpensive, and a "kit" lens, it gets a bad rep. The more I use mine, the more I appreciate it. More dollars or longer length doesn't necessarily equate to better photos. If you have taken at least a thousand photos with your 18-55, and you still feel it doesn't meet your needs, then you'll have some justification for getting something else.
Your last statement makes the most sense of all.
Last edited:
I try, although not nearly successful enough, to go by this advice I read somewhere . . . . . . .
"Don't try to decide which lens I need to get this shot, but how can I get this shot with the lens I have".
What I guess I am saying is don't go buying lenses to improve your photography if the lenses you have will do the job just fine.
Still, there is a validity to what your concern is. You want a lighter and more convenient package to carry with you on your hikes. Hikes must be the primary time for you that you do your photography. If so, then you should strive to get what you need out of your gear, be it light weight and convenience or quality. Try to get both. Either of those lenses, 18-200mm or the 18-300mm, may work great within the ranges you use them for what you do. If you find you mostly use shorter focal lengths and into the wide angle lengths, get a zoom that more closely covers the focal lengths you need the most. that way you get a much better quality image out of a lens that offers the focal range you use.
gahhhh so true and yet so difficult to follow those rules when you're just starting out. It always seems like you're missing something that can make your life easier. I'm just going to have to do a better job of convincing myself to use what I currently have and stop wanting more and more. I do want a prime lens though more for the really good low-light performance than anything.
Hiking has been my main source of photography practice lately but I'm working on expanding the environments I use. I'm going to be taking the 18-55 and 55-200 to vegas for 4 days starting this Saturday so that should take me out of my comfort zone especially with the low light and architecture. I'm also going to bring a tripod with me to try and get some shots of the city if I can find a good view.
Hiking has been my main source of photography practice lately but I'm working on expanding the environments I use. I'm going to be taking the 18-55 and 55-200 to vegas for 4 days starting this Saturday so that should take me out of my comfort zone especially with the low light and architecture. I'm also going to bring a tripod with me to try and get some shots of the city if I can find a good view.