I've sold my D90 and am waiting for my pre-ordered D7000 body to arrive. I used the 18-200mm lens for months on my D90 body before opting to upgrade my camera body. I simply love the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VRII DX. It will be my main lens on the new camera.

PB PM said:
I think the answer comes down to this simple fact; in the hands of a good photographer, both lenses can produce great images.

LOL ! Its a bit hard sometimes when they take better photos with inferior gear !! LOL ! Dont worry henry we still love you ! :-)

double post.. please delete.

I think the answer comes down to this simple fact; in the hands of a good photographer, both lenses can produce great images.

Willis said:
I own the original 18-200, and love it. It's not the best optically, but its certainly not bad.

Quite frankly, excluding the focal range from any discussion about the merits of the 18-200 vs. another lens seems to me to be as silly as excluding image quality form a comparison of the Nikon 70-200 VR II vs. some other tele-zoom.

Focal range is the reason you buy lenses like this.

For what its worth, while I don't own the 24-120, I've read that its fine on DX. Not so great on FX. Then again nither is the 18-200 as its a DX lens. My guess is that they are optically about the same.

I probably should have mentioned this in my initial post, but the primary reason for the question is that I currently own the original version of the AF-S DX 18-200mm VR lens and I use it on my D300. My wife owns the AF-S 24-120mm VR lens and she uses it on her D60. We also have a AF-S DX 10-24mm that we both use, but I use it more than her.

We have been having many debates with regards to which is the best lens optically and this is the reason for the question.

Sorry for any confusion that I may have caused and thanks to everyone. Please provide more comments if you have them.

I own the original 18-200, and love it. It's not the best optically, but its certainly not bad.

Quite frankly, excluding the focal range from any discussion about the merits of the 18-200 vs. another lens seems to me to be as silly as excluding image quality form a comparison of the Nikon 70-200 VR II vs. some other tele-zoom.

Focal range is the reason you buy lenses like this.

For what its worth, while I don't own the 24-120, I've read that its fine on DX. Not so great on FX. Then again nither is the 18-200 as its a DX lens. My guess is that they are optically about the same.

The 24-120mm VR is a nice lens, but the 18-200 is more practical for DX users, unless you also have a 12-24mm F4.

I would go for the 18-200. The 24-120 isn't really useful unless you really plan to move back to FX.

Henry,

I've used both lenses, and found that the 18-200mm is sharper at nearly all apertures. The 24-120 does well at around f/8 to f/11, but outside of that range not so well. I've owned two of the 24-120 lenses, and they were very similar.

I used them both on DX bodies (Nikon D300, D90, D5000, and D2x), so I can't comment on FX.

- Darrell Young

If the 24-120 is bad on fx then it will be worse on dx. I have the 18-200 and IQ wise its not great either. Its a great walk about lens and holiday lens. I have heard people say that the 24-85 was brought out by nikon as an antidote for the weaknesses of the 24-120. ie sharper and faster. depends what you want the lens for.. all lenses are compromises...

Which lens will provide better optical results the Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm VR Lens or Nikon AF-S 24-120mm VR on a D300?

Do not consider the various ranges of the 2 lenses I am only wondering about the optical results of the 2 lenses on a DX body.

The DX 18-200mm is smaller glass and the FX 24-120mm is larger glass only utilizing the center portion, but is not considered by some to be a good lens. I think that most of the negative comments about the FX 24-200mm lens are based on it being used on a FX body.