TaoTeJared said:
Interesting conversation.

I'm always stuck (DX) looking for a basic zoom in that 17-150 range and have found all to be garbage by my persnickety standards. I have broke 3 plastic mounts in the past so the 18-105 is out, the 18-200vr is overpriced and both have enough distortion that it bugs me to no end. The 16-85vr comes close but is at 5.6 by 50mm which is way to slow (lack of bokeh) for what I want my glass to achieve. The Tamron 17-50 VC comes really close but alas it is too short as I love to shoot from the 40-100mm FX range. All of this added together, I along with many, will be left wanting endlessly forever I fear. The only option I have came up with is to go FX and get the 24-120 f4 (have not done) or just get used to swapping lenses wither either f4s, 2.8s and primes (that is what I do).

Walk around lenses have always been full of trade-offs. If you don't mind shooting at f5.6-11 they work really well. For someone like me, they should just paint them red since they are the Devils work - the details always leave me scorched.

That said all the lenses are sharp, perform extremely well and optically superior than any other brands and any previous options. Calling the "18-200 is optically inferior" is far from the truth and maybe someone got an out of alignment lens. Anyone who thinks they are soft needs to spend more time with the lenses from Sigma in this range and not compare them to the Nikkor 2.8s.

Given the price of the 18-105, it should be a no brainer to get one. Add the 70-300 and you have good overlap (which is always overlooked and is an understated need) and a hell of a walk around/travel/everything kit.

Advice: If you still feel "left wanting" - Just give in and realize you will be carrying a lot of weight for the glass you want. Don't worry you are not the only one.

While I know this is about the 18-105mm, I'd like to say a few word about the 18-135mm. I'm happy with the 18-135mm, the predecessor to the 18-105 VR. I had chosen it as an alternative to the 18-55 and 55-200 kit zooms that would have came with the D40. I've used it since the beginning of my DSLR days, which would be from 2008 till now. I'll have to admit, it does vignette a bit and purple fringes quite a bit. But I would say that it's plenty sharp and the bokeh at the long end is even good to fair.

On the way to buying a D40, I was considering between getting the D40 with the 18-135 or 18-55 dual kit lenses or even getting a D40x body only with the 18-200mm. I considered the 18-200 to be too expensive and at that point I didn't know if I would be thinking about doing photography for the long haul. The 18-135 probably has similar build to the 18-105, and it's a plastic fantastic lens. Definitely not built to withstand anything, but I'd say it's not a bad lens at all. Additionally, I've used the 18-55 and I feel that the 18-135 focuses just slightly faster than the 18-55.

Jeez, after looking at the price of an 18-200, I don't think I'd be getting it anytime soon. I've seen it at a low of around $650 to $700, and I think after the tsunami disaster automatically raised the price of it. The 70-300 is at $586 right now at B and H. $300 isn't peanuts, and I'd much rather be spending that change on a 50mm 1.8 AF-S instead. I agree with the earlier comments from JohnnyApple, the 70-300 VR is optically superb and probably pairs better with the kit lenses. On the plus side, it's also FX glass, which won't be going anywhere in the future.

Here's a sample of the bokeh. No idea what the berries are but I was surprised that there was still berries in late November.

jonnyapple said:
I'll do them for you, John. Three out of four is 75%. And so is 12M out of 16M ;-)

Very good, Jonny, but I was looking for something a bit more practical!

I reckon you can -
crop about one and a half inches off a 10x8 print (i.e. down to 8.5 x 6.5) from a 16M image
then enlarge back up to 10x8
and still have the same resolution as a 10x 8 from 12M sensor.

But it is nearly midnight on Boxing Day here. So my brain is not quite 100% as sharp as it should be.

Hope you and all the other NikonRumours people had a good Christmas!

andrewz said:
I too take a little umbrage when the 18-200 is called optically inferior. If you compare the 18-105 and 18-200 on DXOmark the lenses are very comparable. To the 18-200’s credit the 18-105 just bets it in resolution by 5 lp/mm (whatever that is and can you really see it with your eye?).

Sharpness is not the only factor that defines optical quality. Compare the distortion, vignetting and CA's of both lenses and you will get my point.

Anaxagoras said:
And whilst 200mm is not generous for sport, the D5100 does have 16M pixels so, depending on how you plan to display your images, there is considerable scope for cropping to "get closer". Bear in mind that three of the four professional cameras Nikon currently offer are "limited" to "only" 12M. (I was going to do the maths but, to be honest I can't be bothered.)

I'll do them for you, John. Three out of four is 75%. And so is 12M out of 16M. In the words of Nick Burns, "Was that so hard?" http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/nick-burns/2786 ;-)

I'd say go with the 18-200.

Yes, yes, I know the whole point of SLRs is to be able to swap lenses, but it isn't compulsory to do so - especially when you first start out. Most of the SLR users I know, started with the kit lens and added the appropriate lenses as their experience grew (or not for those few who found photography was not "for them").

And whilst 200mm is not generous for sport, the D5100 does have 16M pixels so, depending on how you plan to display your images, there is considerable scope for cropping to "get closer". Bear in mind that three of the four professional cameras Nikon currently offer are "limited" to "only" 12M. (I was going to do the maths but, to be honest I can't be bothered.)

In due course you can add further lenses to suit your and your wife's needs. Personally, I use the 10-24 (brilliant, tho costly), and the inexpensive 35/f1.8 (not used a lot, but worth its weight in gold when it is). I'd recommend both for your consideration.

18-200
A single lens that will make a pretty decent job in meeting all your needs...
At a reasonable price...
That is far, far better than a P&S...
And with masses of scope for the future.

zlik said:
I would advise the 18-105. Although it's more convenient, the 18-200 is optically inferior. For me, the 18-105 is a very capable lens, but the 18-200 is below my "quality limit" for a lens.

But if convenience is what you are looking for, nothing beats the 18-200.

I too take a little umbrage when the 18-200 is called optically inferior. If you compare the 18-105 and 18-200 on DXOmark the lenses are very comparable. To the 18-200’s credit the 18-105 just bets it in resolution by 5 lp/mm (whatever that is and can you really see it with your eye?).
My comment on sharpness is purely academic the assumption is, all other factors being equal the shorter zoom will be sharper.
If you really need a high level of “sharpness”, you need to be shooting primes. My all time favorite my old MF 180 2.8 EDIF, best lens I ever owned. I still regret selling it.

Good luck picking a lens but you should let us know what you get in the end. I still vote 18-200.

Interesting conversation.

I'm always stuck (DX) looking for a basic zoom in that 17-150 range and have found all to be garbage by my persnickety standards. I have broke 3 plastic mounts in the past so the 18-105 is out, the 18-200vr is overpriced and both have enough distortion that it bugs me to no end. The 16-85vr comes close but is at 5.6 by 50mm which is way to slow (lack of bokeh) for what I want my glass to achieve. The Tamron 17-50 VC comes really close but alas it is too short as I love to shoot from the 40-100mm FX range. All of this added together, I along with many, will be left wanting endlessly forever I fear. The only option I have came up with is to go FX and get the 24-120 f4 (have not done) or just get used to swapping lenses wither either f4s, 2.8s and primes (that is what I do).

Walk around lenses have always been full of trade-offs. If you don't mind shooting at f5.6-11 they work really well. For someone like me, they should just paint them red since they are the Devils work - the details always leave me scorched.

That said all the lenses are sharp, perform extremely well and optically superior than any other brands and any previous options. Calling the "18-200 is optically inferior" is far from the truth and maybe someone got an out of alignment lens. Anyone who thinks they are soft needs to spend more time with the lenses from Sigma in this range and not compare them to the Nikkor 2.8s.

Given the price of the 18-105, it should be a no brainer to get one. Add the 70-300 and you have good overlap (which is always overlooked and is an understated need) and a hell of a walk around/travel/everything kit.

Advice: If you still feel "left wanting" - Just give in and realize you will be carrying a lot of weight for the glass you want. Don't worry you are not the only one.

tcole: Great shots, which to me look plenty sharp!

I don't know...the 18-105 can't do this:

Shot on the same day on the same road about a half mile apart without switching lenses. To me this is what the 18-200 is all about. Not the sharpest lens I own, but by far the most versatile.

@20mm

@200mm

For me the choice was simple. I had an 18 - 105, but missed shots when changing lenses. I chose the 18 - 200 VRII and have been very pleased with it. It's not that fast. And in low light it hunts when focusing. And, it's most definitely not a professional lens. But, it helps me get shots I likely wouldn't get and for that, it's a great lens. It's well made, and the newest version doesn't have lens creep (something which afflicted the first version). Santa's brining me my first ever macro and I'll get a fast prime sometime in the future, but mark me a happy camper with my 18 - 200.

I would advise the 18-105. Although it's more convenient, the 18-200 is optically inferior. For me, the 18-105 is a very capable lens, but the 18-200 is below my "quality limit" for a lens.

But if convenience is what you are looking for, nothing beats the 18-200.

I have an 18-200mm and think it the most versatile lens I’ve ever owned. If I have to pick one lens to bring it the one I reach for. I would always recommend it as a good first lens.
Yes it’s probably not as sharp as a shorter zoom and it’s a little on the slow side but there are always compromises.
Since owning this lens I’ve re-evaluated what my lens needs are and really reduced my want list. I now have a 50mm 1.8 because it’s a great value and super sharp. I also have a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 for my wide angle needs. My next lens will be fast FX glass, 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8, it all depends on money.
No matter what the 18-200mm is the lens that is always on my D200 when I first pick it up.

@DaveyJ - I had both N70-300vr and N80-400vr and the first one is not even close in IQ to the second one. N70-300vr is a great lens in 70-200 range, once You cross 200mm it's getting soft, which can't be written about N80-400vr - perfect from 80 to 400. The only, and the major, drawback of N80-400 is the lack of AF-S = no manual ovveride, apart from that it's a really nice lens - fast enough AF for most situations (although it's not AF-S but the speed is comparable to N70-300vr).

I am a little surprised at nikkornut trading "up" from a 70-300VR lens. It is one of Nikon's best lens for no-nonsense photography.
The 80-400 however sadly needs upgrading and SALES would prove it. I am not sure Nikon hasn't picked up on it. Yes there are Nikkor lens out there that are really great but when they are very heavy and expensive and cannot yield images within the range up to 300 (which on DX is pretty long) that are head and shoulders better than these reasonable and popular lens......I just don't want one that is that pricey!

kyoshinikon said:2.Is the plastic mount on the 18-105 problematic?
Not really...

It broke for me, and at a terrible time at that (halfway up a mountain). Until then it was a good lens, and I might even try to bodge a working mount together using one of my many old manual lenses that aren't worth anything.

Hi. I have owned the Nikkor 18-55, 18-105 (D90 Kit lens), the 70-300 VR & the 18-200 VR. The 18-105 was sharp, but i found the longer end lacking esp. for my son's soccer games. The 70-300VR was far better for this purpose with enough reach. I unloaded both to upgrade to other lenses. I own an 18-200 VR w/c for me is the perfect one lens for travel purposes with a DX cam. I also bought a 35/1.8G DX for low-light shooting. This 2 lens combo is makes a great DX lens kit as long as you're ok with the 18mm wide end.

I have used my 18-105VR and after awhile I switched to the 18-200VR as it worked as well within the 18-105VR range but I have found the extra reach of the 18-200VR very useful.

Once again it is all who you ask and their purposes. When I drive for work I keep my camera with my 18-200 on it. I like the wide range and I never really know what I will come across. It allows me to stop for an animal that might need 200mm (probably really need more) or a nice landscape that I need 18mm. It is a very adaptable lens to have around. I also don't always have time to change lenses especially when it is an animal I come across. BUT that is my use and it might not be for everyone.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

"I would go with the 18-105VR Nikkor and the 70-300VR Nikkor as soon a soon you as can add that."

Quite agree.

I just finished a small shoot (video) in Glacier National Park for a travelogue that feature clips from both lenses. I have a bunch of other lenses in my bag, but these two were used a lot.

My best,

Mike

The 18-105VR is probably my most used lens for video work. I love the range and VR for video. Unless I need crazy narrow DoF/ low-light, the 18-105 is perfect for video IMHO.

Hi all,

"I would go with the 18-105VR Nikkor and the 70-300VR Nikkor as soon a soon you as can add that."

Quite agree.

I just finished a small shoot (video) in Glacier National Park for a travelogue that feature clips from both lenses. I have a bunch of other lenses in my bag, but these two were used a lot.

My best,

Mike

@Frank III: I own and use all of the lenses discussed and help newcomers sort these out very often. I would go with the 18-105VR Nikkor and the 70-300VR Nikkor as soon a soon you as can add that. B&H has given some of my friends in this same boat a wonderful deal on D3100 and the two lens, or D90 and the two lens. These two lens are a very good combo!! The images with them are very good. The 18-200VR is one of my favorite general use lens BUT the price is high enough that you had better have a compelling reason to use it. The 18-200VR is a very high quality lens but within the 18-105 range is no better than the less expensive lens. The 70-300VR is one of the most hand holdable telephoto lens I have ever owned. The quality on that lens I would rate as extraordinary. I think even your wife would find it light enough.

Frank_lll said:
Wow, lots of info. I think I like the sound of the 18-105 and adding on the 70-300. A friend is selling me his 50mm so that I am getting for sure. Is there a legit sight that icould get the 70-300 used? Either way I think my next step is heading to the store to see what each one feels like in my hand, and maybe more importantly my wife's hand.

B&H, Adorama, Amazon are all good places.

adamz said:
@sevencrossing - a lot of us suggest more than one lens because that's what dslr is all about. if You wanna stick to one lens solution get a powerful hybrid such as FinePix HS20EXR and don't bother yourself with dslr. if You want dslr than swapping lenses is obvious decision.

.
I agree totally

besides, you usually know what you are going to be covering and will have the lens mounted on the camera to cover what you are doing.

as an example, if you are covering the action at a sporting event, then you will most likely mount the 70-300, your point of intrest will be covered by the long lens, that does not mean that something will not happen close to you for which the lens will be too long.

you are around the house, out driving use the 18-55/105 lens, at the sporting event where you want to capture the kid, the 55/70 -300, want to gt into the landscapes seriously later on, get the ultra wide angle zoom, wildlife- 400/500/600 prime, macro, a lens for that, etc.

don't point him down the, get one lens that will do all road, his photography will be limited and growth will be stunted.

also, Nikon DSLR lenses are easy to mount and unmount, and as Adamaz said, that is why we buy the camera, to have lenses for different situations.

people who buy 18-200 DX &28-300 FX, stick them on the camera and expect never to change them, they never utalize the full potential of the camera.

Wow, lots of info. I think I like the sound of the 18-105 and adding on the 70-300. A friend is selling me his 50mm so that I am getting for sure. Is there a legit sight that icould get the 70-300 used? Either way I think my next step is heading to the store to see what each one feels like in my hand, and maybe more importantly my wife's hand.

adamz said:
if You wanna stick to one lens solution get a powerful hybrid such as FinePix HS20EXR

I have to confess, I have never used a HS20EXR. My only experience of this type of camera is there a slight delay, between pressing the shutter and taking the picture, thus again missing the "The decisive moment"