No need to have two threads going at the same time about the same subject. Since the other thread has more responses I'm closing this one.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2439

The 18-200mm lens is absolutely wonderful I loved it when I had it. I have had that lens twice but no longer. I agree with jonnyapple on the fact that prices are reflected in the strengthening Yen. I think Nikon might be taking a look at Leica's profits maybe? I feel for you tcole1983 glass is a very expensive investment...

TCole: While I don't disagree that Nikon makes some expensive lenses, my question to you would be, what has not having the more expensive lens kept you from shooting? How's it affected your results?

The only questions then become, how bad do you want those photos or those results? And are there alternatives (3rd party stuff) that might work as well at a fraction of the price?

"Too expensive" is relative. If you need it or want it badly enough, you'll find, or save up, the money. If you don't want that much, or really don't need it, it's actually very cheap 'cause you're probably not going to buy it. :)

+1, hearty. That's what lenses like the 18-200 are so nice for is finding out what at focal lengths it makes sense to invest more in. And now I'm going to stop talking and go take pictures. ;-)

The kit lenses are really not that bad... at consumer level you can now get from 18-300 range in various combinations. and on DX thats a substantial range! a bit above that level you get the 12-24, 16-85, 85mm microvr and the 70-300 vr. again a substantial range for just a bit more cash. for low light you get the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 after that like you say its the big bucks bleeding edge stuff. and in between the top range and the low ranges thats where the 3 party lenses live. where they try to have specifications like the top rage but with compromises in Build and Image quality. Canon fills that gap with some of their F4.0 lenses. It looks like nikon may be trying to do teh same now. but you must realise than nikon is not a huge company and they need to focus their resources on what they think are the best products and limited production capabilities.

You really dont need every focal lenght in pro class lenses. Just get the lense for what you really want to shoot. Just 1 or 2 specialist lenses is all you really need.

I think part of the higher prices is the strengthening yen. There's not much Nikon can do about that. With these releases it seems like Nikon is catching up on FX lenses that they should have replaced a few years ago (with the D3), but you can't have everything at once. They were concentrating instead on DX, so it just seems a little backward that they're releasing these lenses with the D3100.

I find the DX kit lenses impressive, and there are a few other inexpensive options like the all-rounder 16-85, which I probably would have bought a while ago if I didn't see myself going FX at some point. The 35 1.8 is awesome (laugh, Niko), and shows Nikon's commitment to DX. You'll love that one. I think you'd have more reason to whine if you were a canon DX shooter. Even the 18-105 is an awesome lens, especially when price is considered. I've been using the 70-300 VR for a couple of days and I'm really impressed with that lens. Like TTJ said, the 60 2.8G macro is around $600 and is a great lens if it's anything like the 60 2.8D, which I've used a lot.

This has been Nikon's path for quite a few years now. The last lower grade camera that came with the screw drive cam was the D50 which was 5 years ago. By allowing only AFS lenses this keeps the prices down on the camera. Just one of those things. I do believe the D90 series and above will always have the cam screw drive in them or at least until they update all of the other primes out there.

That being said - I hear you on the $1k+ price tags. Even for a lens junkie like me it is hard to justify. Non Nikon is not the big of a deal especially if you are on a budget. Check Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron for cheaper AFS lenses. Tokina is the best, but does not have many lenses (12-24mm afs Ver II is awesome and 1/2+ the price of Nikon).

It sounds like you are looking for speed and shallow DOF. The 35mm 1.8 would be a great purchase. There is the 50 AFS 1.4 which works well for a portrait lens. Both are fast and you would not regret either purchase. I would also consider the 60mm macro 2.8 & 85mm VR macro. Sigma has some faster zooms as well.

I would suggest getting the 35mm 1.8 - I have it, love it, and don't leave home with out it.

So with the release of the new lenses and the D3100 where do you think Nikon is headed? I don't really understand what the deal is. I assume the new body doesn't have the screw driving AF motor in the body. So what I am wondering is what Nikon is trying to do. Every new lens I have seen released other then the new kit lens is ultimately unaffordable to a normal consumer like me (over $1000). Not even that I couldn't save the money to buy it, but I can't justify $1000 for a lens especially when I have a D5000 body that I got for ~$430. So why are there no lenses for the people that purchase the D3000, D3100, D5000. You are limited to AF-S lenses. Well how many of the new AF-S lenses are even affordable? Not too many. Why would you make the lowest body cameras without the ability to use lenses that people as just a consumer level photographer might actually be able to afford? Do they expect everyone that buys anything lower then the D90 to be satisfied with the kit lenses? It seems like if the lower level camera bodies are a big chunk of the sales for Nikon then they would releases lenses to go along with those bodies. I mean I have the 18-200 lens and just ordered the 35 f1.8 lens, but where do I go from there? All the affordable lenses from here are very specialized lenses. The 12-24 lens would be cool, but how often would I use that? The 105 f2.8 might be sharp, but I would probably use it about the same as the 12-24. The only other lenses that fall sub $1000 are the kit lenses and these are covering the same range of zoom over and over and all have pretty much the same build quality and picture quality. No kit lens is really better then the others. So me switching to another 3.5-5.6 lens isn't going to help me out much.

Bottom line I will keep my 18-200 kit lens to have as a general purpose lens, but then when you want to move out of the kit lens line you have to spend the big $$$ or there isn't much you can do other then buy another brand. I don't know why there aren't more intermediate lenses that are more within the reach of the average person that wants something more then just the kits. It doesn't make sense for Nikon to move toward just pro level stuff especially now with the direction that they have moved especially with the sales of their entry level cameras. Also with the venues that Nikons are now sold at you can't expect Target or similar stores to carry any pro level lenses.