Despite the first post asking for DX, I will answer to the title. With my D700, if I was allowed only one lense, it would definitely be the Nikkor 24-70 F2.8. This lense is on 90% of the time. I suspect it will be even more so with my D800 (arriving next week) unless I discover that it is too soft with the 36mp. I will see which place my new 14-24 F2.8 will occupy.

I think you will be happy with your purchase.

A note on your questions - all of Nikon's lenses will focus on your camera. I saw the older 50mm AFD 1.8 price ($79)and my jaw dropped. Great price for that! If you are interested in the 50mm, there are many posts on here if you do a forum search. They are all about the same with minor differences.

Good choice. If you'd bought the 50mm you would have found that focal length less useful than the 35mm. Check the ExiF data from your 18-200 shots and see how many are close to 50 in comparison to 35.

Spent the afternoon researching & ended up buying the Nikon 18-200 AF-S and the 35mm 1.8 - just got to wait for them to come - excited! :D

Thanks all for your help!

Thanks so much for all the advice and options.

Looks like the Nikon 18-200 is a definite

I'm still tossing up between the 35 & 50mm. Leaning towards the 50mm.

My only problem is now is ensuring that it fits on my Nikon D90. Am i right in thinking that any AF or AF-S will fit my D90?

Looking at purchasing this today 18-200 http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=4992&category_id=97&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=79

And then between the;
50 1.8 - http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=4911&category_id=97&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=79

OR
35 1.8 - http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=3173&category_id=97&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=54

What's the different between the AF & AF-S?
Is there much difference in the 1.4 to 1.8 to justify the price?

Why is this one so cheap? http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=628&category_id=97&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=79

Another +1 for the 18-200mm and 35mm prime. However, get a nice solid 35mm like the famous Ais or a Zeiss ZF version. The 28mm prime Ais or Zeiss would be great too. As an alternative a nice fast cheap 50mm would work wonders for you as well.

msmoto said:
@TaoTeJared +1

Ditto

18-200 definitely. I bought into the Nikon system solely because of the versatility of that one lens for travel. I've lost count of the number of times that limited weight and space dictate that my old D60 / 18-200 are all that I can carry (and maybe a Lumix lx-3 in my pocket just in case).

It's not perfect but it's great value when you discover how often you'll use it.

Enjoy your travels :-)

Just about every lens Nikon makes will take great pictures...even the lowly 18-55 kit lens. If you can spend the money and think it will be a once in a life time shooting opportunity you might not want to limit yourself to just the 18-200. Unless you want to spend money and lug around a lens like the 70-200 F2.8 then there isn't that much difference in any of the variable aperture zoom lenses. They have different focal lengths, but overall they perform about the same. Most of the zooms don't perform great at their extremes. The 18-200 isn't great at 200. The 70-300 isn't as good after 200 mm.

If you wanted a go light weight kit that you never had to change anything...I would get the 18-200, a monopod or tripod and maybe a flash.

I would say at least half my pictures on flikr were taken with the 18-200...most versatile lens and can produce great photos despite some peoples reservations.

Couple examples...

About the 18-105mm lens....plastic mount. Read Tao's remarks above. Maybe the 18-105 pus a 35mm or 12-24mm. In 1970 in Europe for three weeks, NIKON F, 24mm and 85mm on full frame of course, 270+ shots with 24mm, 5 shots with 85mm. Did not miss a thing.

Nikon and Tokina are the only brands I buy as they are both supurb in build and image quality.

Considering your trip, if it were me, I would take a 12-24mm (tokina) 35mm, 50mm and the 18-200. The 12-24mm would capture the sweeping vistas you will encounter with less distortion. The 35 for small, light weight and bustling cities & markets. The 50 in case the 35 feels too wide. And of course, the 18-200 when you really want or feel the need not to change lenses. That is me though.

All in one's/ Low light
Keep in mind, all-in-one lenses are a good lesson in compromise. They do a lot very well, but nothing supurb. To hit supurb, (low light, highest IQ, etc.) you would be carrying 30lbs of gear which you would probably just leave in your room. That's the trade-off.

The best way to think of it, is to add lenses to where the compromise exceeds what you are willing to give up. The zoom covers everything but compromises a bit on low light, size, and bokeh (out of focus areas.)
- The 40 would add great macro capability if that is your thing, but you loose a bit of low light capability and some bokeh.
- The 35 1.8 is a great low light performer, good bokeh, and does well as a macro stand in - if you don't shoot much macro.
So it macro stuff is more important than low light, I would go with the 40mm. If low light and maximum bokeh is more important, the 35mm is the better choice.
- If you want to take more isolated photos of people and don't feel comfortable getting close, the 50mm 1.8 or even the 85mm 1.8 maybe a option as well. But they both don't do as well with macro work (for me, they don't cut it at all - but I love macro shots.)

Traveling for as long as you are, I would stay away from plastic mounts just to be safe as a good jolt will break them. Along the same lines, I would take at least one other lens (prime or zoom) just in case your main lens breaks and a small pocket digi cam. You can always keep one in your suitcase at the hotel. None of the lenses are brittle and are all made well, but one bang on a wall or bump that causes you to drop it can always happen. It would be a shame if you are stuck without any camera or are stuck racing around trying to find a solution rather than enjoying your time.

Yes, if you have the 18-105 it should work fine. Remember, you can always zoom with your feet like we used to do so long ago when we all used primes and the early zooms were not sharp.

Sorry… typo…

I would use the 16 -85. A wonderful lens on my D300 which should work equally well on your D90 :)

I would use the 16 -85. A wonderful lens on my D300 whi should work equally well on your D90 :)

I am using nikon 28-300 mm vr for my walk around and 24-70 mm f2.8 for my wide angle and portrait and low light shots. Its for D800. Thx

@k8dt,

You indicated you had the D90 but did not say if you had the 18-105mm that usually comes with it. If you do, don't ever spend your money on a 18-200mm. The 105-200mm range does not bring that much; at least not enough to justify $600-700.

So if you already have the 18-105mm, don't buy anything else till you figure out your own needs. If you don't, considering you are not that much into photography , I'd say again stick to a cheap 18-105mm. It is more than enough till you figure out YOURSELF what you need most.

Ditto - Nikon 18-200.

The Nikon 35 f1.8 is small and light and could be a useful addition if you think you might need the bigger aperture.

And I always think long and hard about taking my Nikon 10-24, but it nearly always stays at home.

Sadly, when I bought my travel lens six weeks ago all the UK Nikon dealers were out of stock of the 18-200 (due to the rumoured 18-300, perhaps?).

So I bought the Tamron 18-270 instead. BIG, BIG mistake. Many shots are overexposed, some ridiculously so. The autofocus is noisy and slow. The IQ is poor compared to the Nikon, especially vignetting. AVOID at all costs.

18-200 if you take just one lens, it can "do it all" except for low light photography when you just have to increase your ISO. Above about 800 ISO you will probably start to see objectionable noise in your photos with a D90. You can leave that lens on your camera body about 90% of the time.

Then add an SB 400 flash to cover the other 10% of the time.

Either a 35mm f1.8 (if you think at times you may be doing a lot of indoor available light shots) or a 50mm f1.8 (if you think at times you may be doing a lot of portraits in lower light) can be useful but there are ways to duplicate them with the 18-200. Use the SB-400 bounced off the ceiling to add more light indoors. The SB400 is very small and the flash head does tilt to bounce off the ceiling. A place a small piece of paper (cut from a recipe card) in the crack between the flash head and body of the flash with just about 1/2 inch sticking up to bounce a bit of sparkle into the subject's eyes.

I find I can produce great portraits with my 18-200 at 300mm. Some people don't realize both a low f-stop and high magnification create that shallow depth of field which blurs background. I have been surprised how well the 18-200 does with outdoor portraits shot at f5.6 and 200 mmm (which is really 300 mm in old 35mm language)

It just may be that the thing you will need more than a second lens is a flash for indoors.

k8dt said:
Are the actual branded Nikon les' one of the best brands to get?
Thanks so much for your help :)

If you do a forum search for Sigma, Tokina, Tamron (etc.) you'll see a lot of discussion. If I can boil it down, it seems thatthe consensus here is that quality control is the issue with the off-brand lenses. Some copies are great; others are poor. IQ, Autofocus, etc. I have a Sigma 8-16mm and I totally love it. I think it's just the most wonderful piece of glass, but I've come to realize I might be a little lucky to have an excellent copy. Don't let me stop you from going with an off-brand lens, but if you buy one, be sure to put it through its paces before leaving on your voyage, in case you need to return it.

I totally understand wanting to take one lens only but I would totally try to find a way to carry a fast, light (your style, your choice) prime or two along for the ride even if I had to bring it in my armpit. These primes can be quite light and small. Many are inexpensive. And they will get you shots at dawn and dusk and in poorer indoor lightthat the zoom lenses will not get.

I don't know what your budget is but I also shoot D90. The 55-300 kit lens does the job for me and I guess you already have that or the 55-200mm. What I might do is carry that lens you have, lump on the 35mm f/1.8 (roughly $200 at B&H) and the 20mm f/2.8 (about $550, another smallish lens). Combined that's about $750, roughly $200 less than the 28-300mm and roughly $100 less than the 18-200 mm. All of a sudden you're up to three pieces of glass but you'll be surprised weight-wise how it shakes out:
28-300: 800g
18-200: 560 g
20mm f/2.8 plus 35mm f/1.8 470g combined Lump in your 55-200 (255g) and you're still underweight the 28-300. If you have the 55-300, that's an extra 300g

You'll be very well set up for low light. You'll be zooming-with-your-feet some with the primes, but I think the upside is pretty good.

Are the actual branded Nikon les' one of the best brands to get?
Thanks so much for your help :)

Thanks all! this is great information.

Peely22 i'm basing myself in London for a year and traveling anywhere and everywhere, i only have Duabi, Greece and Japan planned.. kinda just letting fate take its cause and see where i end up! :)

I like the sound of the Nikkor 18-200mm so that i can get a wider shot. What's it like for low light situations?

I'll also look at getting a 35/40mm as well since they are compact anyways.

TaoTeJared said:
18-200mm...35mm 1.8

+1

@TaoTeJared +1

Have a look through your own favourite photo's and look at the range you use the most.
If I was on a space/money/time limit, then I would take with me nothing other than a 35mm

The nice thing about only one lens is the Photobook you print when you come back will look all the better for it :)

I spent two weeks in Thailand, and nearly all my shots were with my 35 f2. There really is no need for a zoom on travel. Where are you going?