Lens choices on purchase

When choosing lenses, I had (still have) 4 choices:
1) base cost includes: DX VR 18-105 DX VR
2) for base +$160, instead get : 18-55 and 55-300 DXVR
3) for base +$300, instead get : 18-105 plus 55-300 DX VR
4) for base +$460, instead get : 18-200 DX VRII
I ended up with Option 4, paying the premium, on the logic that the wise choice would be the higher quality lens, and I liked the convenience of a single versatile lense whne travelling.

It's a beautiful lens, but its on the heavy side (glass vs platsic, metal, vs plastic etc). Just wondering aloud if Option 3 might have been better. Those lenses are lighter, and 18-105 is still versatile for every day, and i would bring out the 55-300 as needed (eg on vacation). Hard for me to judge the quality difference ( ie is it "real" in practice). Thoughts??

I have a 18-200 VRII and find it to be a very good lens. Nice choice.

RickSawThat said:

I have a 18-200 VRII and find it to be a very good lens. Nice choice.

Click to expand...

It is, but as a primary lens on the camera most of the time, its is a bit heavy.

Was thinking that 18-105 VR plus 55-300 DX VRII might work better for me ( about the same price point)

My wife and I both have the 18-200 on our D300/s ( we both have the 18-200 and D300/s) more than anything else. Unless I'm after something special I use it rather than the 70-200 2.8 as it is nice and light by comparison. The 18-200 is definitely the right choice.

I'm always impressed by the quality for such a versatile lens as well.

I would have gone with the 18-135 and 55-200 for outright IQ.
The 18-200 is a bit better in build quality and its a great focal range, so very nice and usable,
if you can live with the IQ its fine. Not my cup of tea though.
The VR on the 105 isnt brilliant and I would opt for the 135.
Both the 105 and 135 offer stella IQ, as does the 55-200... regardless of price.

I would have gone for option 5, body only and a 16-85

Of those choices, #3 would have been my choice.

I couldn't comment on the difference in IQ that westmill has highlighted although I'm sure that's the case. I have generally found it ok although compared to my 70-200 it is obviously not close. That said the latter is cumbersome and if it was on all the time I would keep reaching for 18mm and it wouldn't be there.

I keep wondering about buying a 35 or 50mm prime but I'm not sure how often I would use it unless I had gone out to take particular shots. I suppose I'm saying that the 18-200 means you can always take the shot (light depending) and get images that are pretty good unless you are doing 100+ % crops.

Like just about everything in this hobby, whatever you choose will be some kind of compromise.

My wife got her 18-200 two years before I got my D300s and I liked hers so much it was the first thing I bought.

As for weight, consider it as training because any fast glass you set your sights on in the future will be heavier except maybe the 10.5 fisheye.

Enjoy it whatever way you go.

I would have gone for option #3.......versatility of the 105 and the range of the 300. (which I have both of, by the way)

I don't see why you wouldn't be happy with the 18-200. This is my traveling lens. You can check my images in my gallery (Mallorca and Hungary). It's very nice to be able to take off for a day with only one lens and not have to switch lenses in a crowd for example. OK, some will argue that the IQ is not par with the pro 2.8 zooms, but if you're doing shots for yourself (not main advertising campaigns), you'll love it.

Mediaman09 said:

Not quite following the above in terms of the 18-200 being better build quality (VRII), and yet the comment "if you can live with the IQ its fine". Isnt the IQ better than all my other options??

I have a few days to decide, to either stay with the 18-200 DX VRII, or for $80 less , go for 18-105 DX VR plus 55-300 DX VRII .

Both options have a VRII on the mix, so its really the tradeoff of going to a two-lense setup and getting the increase focal range (and lighter camera when the 105 is attached but missing those shots where a 200mm length would ahve been perfect).... vs... the convenience of a single , albeit heavier, 18-200 lense ( and forefieting the 200 to 300 ability).

Hard call for an inexeperineced user! I cannot really go wrong with either...

Click to expand...

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 here
at 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.

Of the choices given #3

I have the 55-300 and it's a pretty good lens.

Now for the op/ed portion of the thread.
If I was in your shoes, I'd pick the 55-200 DX VR zoom over the 55-300. Why you ask?
The 55-300 is a good sharp lens but it's slow to focus and acquire past 200 mm. The 55-200mm is light, sharp fast to auto-focus and acquire.
If you need to shoot something in a hurry, the 55-300 isn't the lens.
I use the 55-200 as my walkaround lens and usually have the 18-55 or the 35mm AF-S DX f1.8 lens in a pocket.
The reason I bought the 55-300 was I had a couple of hundred bucks left over from my tax return and I got a refurb for $269.

I rented a 18-200 and I was underwhelmed. The images were a bit soft and it's a brick. YMMV. I think the 55-200 and the 35mm together weigh less than the 18-200 by itself. However I'm waiting for Nikon to release the 18-300 in the states.

I had the 18-200 on hire a year ago for a family event, and whilst the pics were great (small prints and online viewing) I did feel by the end of the weekend that I'd done myself some hand injury carrying that beast around all day!!
There were certain advantages of the long zoom like being able to capture family who were camera shy from a discrete location, but looking at most of my shots they were mostly under the 100mm range, and the close ups around the 40-90 range.
Luckily it was a hire lens, so could afford to give it back so to speak, as at full price its quite costly.

I have the 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR at the moment and still find the former is my more walk about lens, though I do wish sometimes I had gone for the 18-105 purely for ease of use.
Windows 7 is great as it lets me have a column for focal length so I'll be checking that on some recent holiday pics to see which is the range I use the most - looking for a prime now so want to know what's better, 35 or 50mm

As for your options - well the 18-200 is a great fit once forget forever lens, as you cover everything you need with it, but bear in mind the weight. No doubt as you get into the whole photography scene(!) you'll want to add to that with primes etc, but that's where for me having a range of lenses is better then a all in one