Hey All,
So to go along with my ready-to-order D7000 I need a lens around the 18 - 200mm mark. Ranges around this is also suitable.
What do you guys think is the best out there, budget is around $1000.
Thanks.
I need an 18 - 200mm (ish) lens
(33 posts) (15 voices)-
Why don't you just buy the Nikon 18-200 VRII?
Posted 2 years ago # -
What part of that range do you actually expect to use the most?
Posted 2 years ago # -
??? if that's the range he wants to use then why NOT get the 18-200VRII? I'm I missing something here?
Posted 2 years ago # -
No, there isn't a better all-in-one if that's what you have your heart set on.
Personally, I'd get any of the DX regular zooms (18-xx) and a real telephoto, perhaps a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. You could pull that off for the same $1000 you're talking about.
But if you're happy with the trade-offs of an all-in-one, there is no reason to go outside Nikon.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So you want a 18-200 lens but not necessarily from Nikon? I think the Nikon 18-200 is the best lens by far from anyone else. You can get better "extreme" image quality but it's going to cost you more $$$ and you'll need more than one lens. You can't go wrong with Nikon's new 18-200.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If build quality isn't your thing, tamron has a 18-270mm for the nikon mount... Still I would opt for the Nikon...
Posted 2 years ago # -
sigma has several in that range I think one of them reviews well but the others not so good.. cant tell you which one though..(didnt have enough interest in that range to remember as I already have the 18-200vr)
Posted 2 years ago # -
My choice for this range and budget would be 16-85 + 55-300. The 16-85 is a little gem, light and compact, significantly wider than 18-200, modest distortion at the wide end, and a great performer by my experience, probably more suited to the higher resolution of the D90 replacement than the 18-200. 55-300 DX looks like a great performer by MTF curves - they've made it very strong at 300mm, which is important. The two can be had for around your budget.
OTOH, if you really expect to be needing to go from 18mm to 200mm instantly without a lens change, then the Nikon 18-200 is your lens, remarkably good for a lens with that range of focal length. My own shooting experience is that the extreme focal lengths of this lens involve shooting different things, and having either sorta-wide-to medium tele or medium-to-long on the camera works fine and involves less sharpness and distortion compromise.
I shoot a lot of wide, have the 12-24 on my camera probably 1/4 of the time and have the wide end well covered, and even so find the 16-85 a much better choice for me than any 18-xx lens.
Happy shooting!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've been stuck on deciding a lens around the standard zoom range for a long time too, but that's also the range I am least careful about what happens to it when I'm running around or hiking or whatever, so I flip between the kit and 35mm 1.8. If I become careful someday for not too much more than the thousand, I think the 17-55 f2.8 would be great, would love the constant aperture and little bit faster glass to justify getting off the kit. Well, that's the 2 cents for my situation.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I would say the Nikon 18-200 or maybe the new 28-300. I don't agree with the 17-55 especially if you want to shoot any wildlife or things like that. I find myself at the 200mm mark and wanting more all the time. I have the Nikon 18-200 and would recommend it. I just don't care for switching lenses. With one of the lenses xx-300 you might get better performance at the 200mm mark then the 18-200, but that is just my speculation and I haven't tried it. I find the performance at 200mm to be pretty good for the 18-200.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think the 18-200VR or the 18-200VRII is the best and that is what I use for a general photographic DX lens. Only if that lens won't do a specific task do I switch, usually leaving that lens on the D90. I have most of the lens mentioned in these posts. The 16-85 is a very good lens and I recommend it once in a while. I also have the 12-24DX and it is worth owning if you shoot DX wide. I also have the older and very good 20-35 which I use a lot on FX. I've used the 18-55VR a lot and decided not to buy one. Within its range (18-55) it is superb and a great buy. I just often want a greater range. I also have the 18-105VR and rarely use it any more but when my next Nikon purchase comes in it will not be with a kit lens and the 18-105VR will go on one of my Nikon DX cameras.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
18-200 VR all the way! Love that lens. It also allows you to explore the focal lengths that you really feel comfortable with so you could say purchase a 35mm in the future. I have mentioned this before I know :) Of course keep in mind the 35mm length on DX is 52mm full frame equivalent if you ever want a FX sensor or film body...
Posted 2 years ago # -
The only downside I can think of is the lens isn't fast. If you want people pictures indoors or really much shooting inside it doesn't work that well. If you shoot outside most of the time then you won't ever have a problem. If you find yourself wanting indoor pictures later on then you could move to one of the faster primes or f2.8 zooms. Anyway as everyone said...if you want a quality all in one lens that does everything pretty well then get the Nikon 18-200.
Posted 2 years ago # -
To those stating that if the guy wants a 18-200 thats what he should get is somewhat incorrect. He states what the budget is but is not sold on the 18-200. I think he should stick to a Nikkor rather than aftermarket based on the very bad results friends of mine have had with non Nikon lens. The other manufacturer lens I have bought have been quite mixed from superb to very poor in holding up despite what looked like good build quality. The primary value of the 18-200VR is simply the need not to change lens but within that range there are two Nikon lens sets that would come for at the same cost. I have found the 18-200VR really good, but it is by no means the only choice. It is not a low light special. Outdoor low lighting can be demanding and there are better lens for that case.
I do use the 18-200VR more than any other lens but it does have trade offs.Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmmm well there will defiantly be times where I'll need to be shooting dark areas indoors and out, but I intend to get an SB-600 flash which will help....
Would the 35mm prime be good in those situations or something else that isn't a prime?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I recently bought a Sigma 18-250 lens. I considered the Nikon 18-200 lens but I couldn't bring my self to spend the extra $500 or just less than that for the Nikon.
Also, my thought is the Sigma has received good reviews and with the money I saved I bought a 60 mm Nikon lens.
as something to consider, you could do something similar and then buy one or a few fixed lenses (better quality) in a length you feel you will use most.
The one part I don't particularly like is the weight of a wide ranged zoom lens. Having shorter fixed lenses might help with the critical high quality shots vs more casual less critical image quality images.
joe
Posted 2 years ago # -
SimoHDK said:
Hmmm well there will defiantly be times where I'll need to be shooting dark areas indoors and out, but I intend to get an SB-600 flash which will help....Would the 35mm prime be good in those situations or something else that isn't a prime?
It isn't that you can't do it with the 18-200, but personally I didn't get great results with it. You can crank the ISO up some and use the right settings, but it just isn't the same. I don't have a hot shoe flash though so it would help. I actually just got the 35 f1.8 and I plan on using it for my low light situations and any time I need more DOF. The only thing is if you want a faster lens A. it will cost you more money (at least for a Nikon one) and B. there isn't one that covers the same range. So you would be sacrificing either range in the telephoto or wide angle area and spend at least $1000 for a faster Nikon lens. You have the same exact dilemma I came across. You could get the Sigma or Tamron 17-55 f2.8 lens (or similar) and then the Nikon 55-200 or 70-300 or something like that. You wouldn't lose any range and have a faster lens when you needed it....just a thought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
A flash will not work in outdoor photos i take usually in low light. Will a prime work? I have a 20mm, a 24mm, and a 35mm so I have used them all. Still........I use my 18-200VR most of all of the fleet of lens I own. I have not used the Sigma 18-250 lens JGM411 mentions. I do know that in the field juggling lens and swapping them in dust and low light is not very much fun.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For sure if you get the 18-200 and use it at 18 OR 200, you should have got two lenses instead, covering a wider focal length range. Once you have the 18-200 you may find you will need to buy a shorter and a longer lens making a total of three which is likely to be a shock to somebody who is trying to only buy one.....
If you only want one, don't get an SLR?
A simplified response, but it may provoke thought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
spraynpray: It just clicked reading your post why the idea of the 18-200 has always vaguely bothered me. I get the convenience, but at the same time it seems to turn the camera into an oversized point-and-shoot.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@SimoHDK: No one on this entire website has ever owned a bigger assortment of lens than I or had more invested in them. That much I am certain of. I no longer feel I need the latest Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, or Rodenstock or for that matter Nikkor. I shoot more with the Nikkor 18-200VR than any other lens. I do not rate it as my best lens. But it is versatile. I do agree with AslightofDay that it is not as good at 18 or at 200 but since the image is what counts not exactitudes of differences are subtle. In distinct disagreement with AsLightofDay the conversion of a Nikon DSLR to point and shoot quality is very poorly taken. I have owned one of the most expensive highly rated point and shoots ever made. The results were terrible. The results of a Nikon D90 (or a D300) with the 18-200VR are really very acceptable to me and that takes into account the 18 and the 200 end of that range. The 28-300 FF Nikkor just announced is also getting reviews from experts that will make people in my category buying one of those. Will that lens be perfect? NO! But it will be very good and from my standpoint probably good enough. Do get the II version of the 18-200 if you get it. The new 35 1.4 may be very worth buying. I will wait to see the price and the size. Look at the relatively small size of some of the Leica lens. They are small. They also are of excellent quality. On Nikon DSLR I use Nikkor lens. Results I have seen with other manufacturers on Nikon cameras leads me to steer away from them. I do know I tend to shoot narrower aperture than some pros so I lean towards a f 2 or 2.8 to pull down size. Some of the best glass though gets reserved for the wider aperture lens.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
