kyoshinikon said:
This thread hasn't closed yet?

Yup, I was giving this thread a chance to become a comparison between the 55-300 and the 18-200 lenses since they've never been directly compared but as usual you guys turned it into yet another "what lens should I buy" thread.

This thread hasn't closed yet?

I do agree that the 18-200mm is the better of the 2 and vignettes less...

I agree with kanuck on the high end lenses...

The main reason to buy a 55-300mm instead of 18-200mm would be cost. I think the 18-200mm is a much better lens though. I personally prefer a wider focal range and when I was shooting DX I thought the 18-200mm was much more useful. However, each person is different. Drab is right you might want to consider in the future getting a faster piece of glass in the future like a 24 or 28mm lens. Those who haven't shot with fast Nikkor glass are in for a real treat compared to consumer lenses thats for sure.

Hi Roddy,

Looks like you haven't much on the wide side, and a lot of redundancies on the tele side - most things overlap.

Sharp lenses come in all maximum apertures, so don't be mislead to think, for example, that a f1.4 is going to be sharper than a f1.8. Even kit lenses such as the 18-105 f3.5-5.6 is a terrific and sharp lens, are generally sharp. The 18-105 is one of the sharpest lenses I own and I take it in my bag all the time. It's also one of the lightest, and likely a great go to lens for those getting started. It was put in the kit for a reason.

Fast lenses work for a set of reasons that shooters need to understand. Coupled with the lens and camera and ISO you use, you have greater control over how your image will appear. That means a multitude of things from depth of field, and from the lens selected a quality called bokeh - also part of that DOF, to motion blur control in the image itself, to the appearance of grain in the image, color and contrast.

In film days, you loaded your film and your latitude was limited, very limited.

You mentioned a 105mm micro, which is nice, but keep in mind that is also a fairly substantial telephoto lens on the DX format, pushing you out to 150mm. I have an older model of the 105 lens, which doesn't have VR, and the lens is quite contrasty. I really like it and use it a lot. I also have the 60mm Micro, while somewhat redundant, it fits the slide copier and bellows attachment.

You might consider a wide zoom such as the 12-24mm or the Tonika 11-16mm.

My kit has as many primes as zooms. Some of my lenses are over 30 years old, they are the few that survived the last robbery, and they work just as well as the lenses I bought in the last year.

If you are shooting wildlife and landscapes in a park or forest you might find a good tripod and shutter remote cable will serve you well, too, perhaps a lot better than a lens. Be sure to turn off VR if the camera is on a tripod. :-)

As a shooting tip, as counterproductive as it might sound, I'd recommend that you leave VR off as a rule, and turn it ON when you know that you need it, then turn it off after the shoot. It will save your battery, and disciple you to your tripod (and you should use a tripod). ;-)

My best,

Mike

motor sports with a 300mm f2.8 af-s

expensive

but boy, are you going to be in love

fast shutter speeds, fantastic blured backgrounds

A friend lent me one to shoot some boat racing, man, it had me thinking what I could sell to buy one.

yeah, they are that expensive, if you are in the states, rent one, the money is worth the experience,

almost as good as the first time you................

i have so far in the way of lenses

nikon 18-55mm
nkon 18-200mm vrii
nikon 55-300mm vrii

have just ordered a little NIKON AF-S 50MM F1.8G it should arrive middle of the week

fingers crossed i'll get a nikon 105mm macro next month

i usually shoot motor sports, wild life and landscapes, just bought the 55-300mm yesterday as i feel i needed that little bit extra reach in some pictures

Hi,

I'm a lens junkie, but I've been at for a long time, so my experience is measured in decades, not weeks.

From 200mm to 300mm isn't that much, not like 50 to 150, for example, so you may find that jump somewhat disappointing.

Before zooms became fashionable, and I can remember that, doubling focal length was a common notion for the use of a lens, IOW, you had a 24mm, a 50mm and a 100 (or a 105 or 135mm) in your basic kit, and a 20mm - remember doubling goes out the window on wides - and a 300mm when you could afford it (all the numbers are for 35 film bodies).

Similarly, today, one would want zoom coverage on wide/tele, but also fast when and where economical, unless money was no object, and money is always an object (and do remember that). Weight/size are considerations, too, some people can't and shouldn't get a lens because someone else thinks it's the right one for them although it's too big and expensive. Two inexpensive fast primes (a 35mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.8 or a 50mm f1.8 or even a Micro 40mm f2.8 which would do double duty as a portrait lens with nice bokeh) might be better than one expensive zoom 17-55mm f2.8, for example.

A lot depends upon what you like to shoot, landscapes, people, street scenes, interiors, architecture, news, sports, just what are you expecting from your lens kit and how often are you expecting it?

How dedicated are you to what is your hobby or craft or new part time vocation?

These are things that you have to put some time in answering.

There are a lot of folks who frequent this site with a lot of experience. You might noodle a question or two that might suggest something broader, perhaps focusing on what your goals are in shooting, that might help you with your choices.

My best,

Mike

I agree with TaoTeJared. I think the 70-300VR is way better than the 55-300. I also think you'd better keep the 18-200VR as it does many things well. It is a good walkabout lens. The 18-55VR is NOT much of a Nikon lens and I just spent some time with a Nikon newcomer and although she had a great 70-300VR and a very good Nikon camera the 18-55VR kit lens is in my mind a dog. I have used 300 prime lens and I DO NOT even like them. Too limiting for field photography for me. Not that it is bad on 300mm. When you need that focal length it is very good. Problem is that it is not a small lens and when it is on a camera telephoto better be ALL you need. When it comes to tele I lean towards a zoom as many field circumstances do not lend themselves to moving backward or forward. I have always been impressed with the Nikon 200-400 but it is really BIG. The 70-300VR has quite a reach and quite a lot of speed and versatility. I'd take a 70-200VR over a 300 Nikkor myself and sales prove that the average buyer agrees. The 70-200VR though often requires some fix for the missing last 100mm.

I'm lost on what you have now as well. You just bounced between 6 lenses.
I either own or have owned everything you mentioned.

I would take the 70-300mm over the 55-300 any day.
I would get a 50mm &/or 35mm before the 105mm. All are great.
I would keep the 18-200mm unless you move to a 2.8. I regret everyday not having kept mine.
I would dump the 18-55mm without blinking.
Casper's 300mm good but I would go for flashes before adding 150mm+ primes if you are starting out. Unless you shoot wildlife/birds all the time, this would be way down the list. I would take my 70-200VR over a 300mmm if the choice was given.

Not sure if I understand correctly, but you said you already have 4 lenses...and you seem to not know what you really want yet. Maybe slow down and decide first??? The 18-200 is a great lens to figure out what you need with. Obviously any of the XX-300 lenses will provide extra length, but I say they are all about the same performance wise until you get one of the 300 primes.

thanks casper

ah well my option before the 55-300 was to wait till next saturday and go for the nikon 28-300mm but as i thought i'm covering the lower range with the 18-55 so opted for the 55-300mm

i think next saturday will be the nikon 105mm macro lens, the niffty 50mm will need to wait untill next month

50mm f1.8 or f1.4 and 105mm micro

now you are getting serious

as TTJ said, throw in the 17-55 f2.6

and I will add get the 300 f4 or f2.8 if you can afford it

wow : killer kit

sell the rest.

thanks for all comments sarcasitic or not... just hought i'd ask what others thought

i've used the 18-200mm for the last 8 months, yes i like the lens, but thought at times i wanted or needed that little bit extra distance that's why i then went and bought the 70-300 yesterday, i still need to get a good days shooting with it to really test it out

next lens i'll be gettin is the nikon 105mm macro and a little niffty 50mm

In case you haven't noticed, there was a lot of sarcasm in many of these posts.

This thread will probably be closed, but a lot of what you asked has been discussed before, feel free to look it up.

It seems like Drab would like to spend your money for you tonight without even knowing what you like shooting or if you like changing lenses.

1) There is nothing wrong with overlap.
&
2) The 18-200 is one of the best DX lenses out there. If you have it - I don't see why you would get rid of it.

I always find that I want to shoot in the 20-120 range indoors and 100-300 outdoors. With what you have, it covers a good range and will not leave you stuck or limited at that 55mm stop which is a royal pain as most head shots look great between 50-120mm. I would dump the 18-55mm though. That one is really redundant and and I think you will find the 18-200mm suits you much better.

If you want to upgrade to a 2.8 17-55 range of a lens, I then would consider selling it, but not until then.

If you really like changing lenses, and can get what you paid for the 18-200, I would look at Drabs suggestions. But it doesn't sound like you are that type of shooter.

jerl said:
I wouldn't sell anything unless you have a very good reason to do so, as you lose money on the deal,

While pedantically true that you likely will not sell the 18-200 for what you paid, you're losing that whether you sell it or not. Best to cut your loses and get something you need rather than hold on to your loses and have the two solutions to the same problem.

I wouldn't sell anything unless you have a very good reason to do so, as you lose money on the deal, especially if down the road you change your mind. Each one of the lenses does something a little differently: the 18-55 is the smallest and the lightest, the 18-200 is a do-it-all lens, and the 55-300 the longest.

Given what you have, I would either take the 18-200 with me, or both the 18-55 and 55-300 with me when I go shooting. The latter provides longer range, but is heavier and bigger overall, and requires lens changes, while the former is fairly compact and frees you from having to wonder if you have the right lens.

What I would do if I were you is to wait a while and see what lenses you use the most. If you find one or more being unused, then it would probably be safe to sell it. And if, like Drab says, you find yourself needing a faster aperture lens, that you can pick up one of those.

You should sell the 18-200. And not for the reason you think.

You need at least one fast lens. You don't have one. (At least you haven't mentioned one, and if you're asking this question I think it is safe to say you don't.)

Sell the 18-200 and buy the 24 2.8, 35 1.8 or 50 1.8. I don't know what length you like best - but pick one (if you can't decide the 35 f/1.8 is the safe answer) and get fast glass.

Also buy a SB-700.

(I also am assuming if you are asking this question you don't have enough money to own all of the above.)

Feel free to correct me where I assumed wrong.

just thought i'd ask on some of your thoughts

i was using the nikon 18-200mm lens but i wanted to get a little bit further distance with some of my pictures.. so i bought the nikon 55-300mm

now the question is should i keep both lenses or just sell my 18-200mm they are both the vrii versions but i also have a Nikon 18-55mm so i cover the same distance apart from getting up to the 300mm range