Reading mode: Light Dark

18-200mm or the 18-55 + 55-200 lenses

Go to last post
D

Davidgilmour

Senior Member
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
869
Location
Kabul, AF
Since Sony is gonna release a 55-200 lens this year as well what do you guys prefer? Buying the sole 18 - 200mm lens which is praised for its IQ or stay with the 18 - 55 and buying the 55 - 200 when it gets released later this year?
 
I think to have the whole focal length from 18 up to 200 in one lens is a big benefit.

I wonder what should be the advantage of having two lenses and having to change them then and when?

Regrads,
Karsten
 
Karsten Meyer said:
I think to have the whole focal length from 18 up to 200 in one lens is a big benefit.

I wonder what should be the advantage of having two lenses and having to change them then and when?

Regrads,
Karsten
Click to expand...
Size? The 18-55 is a nice walkaround lens and the 55-200 can be taken with one when you go out on safari :-)

the 18-200 is a huge huge lens.
 
Size is one thing, price an other. And what about IQ and build quality?

I would never stop using the 18-55mm as the size is not to big! I hope the 55-200 is a decent lens for a good price!
 
gfrensen said:
Size is one thing, price an other. And what about IQ and build quality?

I would never stop using the 18-55mm as the size is not to big! I hope the 55-200 is a decent lens for a good price!
Click to expand...
And I hope Sigma introduces an E version of their 18-125 OS lens...

What a perfect match for the NEX.

--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 
Well to me it seems ridiculous that when the 18-200 has better image quality and range than the 18-55 that you would consider a two lens equivalent as youd be losing iq and having two lenses on ulu. Yes the 18-200 is huge but it's definitely smaller than an 18-55 & 55-200 sat next to each other!!!
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
Well to me it seems ridiculous that when the 18-200 has better image quality and range than the 18-55 that you would consider a two lens equivalent as youd be losing iq and having two lenses on ulu. Yes the 18-200 is huge but it's definitely smaller than an 18-55 & 55-200 sat next to each other!!!
Click to expand...
+1
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
Well to me it seems ridiculous that when the 18-200 has better image quality and range than the 18-55 that you would consider a two lens equivalent as youd be losing iq and having two lenses on ulu.
Click to expand...
Did you see the price of the 18-200 lens, not the lens is huge, the price is! (not to strange for a good lens, with excelent IS)
SparkleHedgehog said:
Yes the 18-200 is huge but it's definitely smaller than an 18-55 & 55-200 sat next to each other!!!
Click to expand...
But you can choose to leve the 55-200 at home and only use the smaller 18-55mm lens. And take both lenses with you when you need the reach of the 55-200mm
When you only have the 18-200mm lens there is no choice, only the one lens...
 
I sold my 18-55 and got the 18-200, such a handy range to have - For those that dont like the size, its not all that heavy, and an 18-55 will not fit into a pocket with the camera, so no real benefit here.

The 18-200 is an excellent lens with really good Active IS, compared to standard IS on the 18-55 and has got perfect sharp resolution across the board. This is my one for all lens and hasn't let me down :)
 
I'd get the lens with better image quality. An all in one lens of 18-200mm if better quality than the 18-55 and 55-200, then I'd much rather have one lens
that does near and far
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
Well to me it seems ridiculous that when the 18-200 has better image quality and range than the 18-55 that you would consider a two lens equivalent as youd be losing iq and having two lenses on ulu. Yes the 18-200 is huge but it's definitely smaller than an 18-55 & 55-200 sat next to each other!!!
Click to expand...
Is that so, for the 18-55 portion of the 18-200's range? (I've heard rather inconsistent answers to that question so far...)
 
Absolutely. At least it certainly has been the case in the two copies of the 18-200 that I've owned. They have both been noticeably better lenses than the 18-55, and no, I didn't get a bad copy of that...the 18-200 is simply better
turnstyle said:
SparkleHedgehog said:
Well to me it seems ridiculous that when the 18-200 has better image quality and range than the 18-55 that you would consider a two lens equivalent as youd be losing iq and having two lenses on ulu. Yes the 18-200 is huge but it's definitely smaller than an 18-55 & 55-200 sat next to each other!!!
Click to expand...
Is that so, for the 18-55 portion of the 18-200's range? (I've heard rather inconsistent answers to that question so far...)
Click to expand...
 
nsta said:
I sold my 18-55 and got the 18-200, such a handy range to have - For those that dont like the size, its not all that heavy, and an 18-55 will not fit into a pocket with the camera, so no real benefit here.

The 18-200 is an excellent lens with really good Active IS, compared to standard IS on the 18-55 and has got perfect sharp resolution across the board. This is my one for all lens and hasn't let me down :)
Click to expand...
I have only the 18-55 lens, and while I wouldn't consider it very pocketable, it definitively enters in many sport jackets. I have a light jacket, that use a lot in spring an autumn and another for winter, and in both it enters. I can upload you a video if you want. Of course it will look as if you have something big there. But it gets inside it.

if the new one was like the kit lens, I would rather have both of them. I generally know what I will use when I leave my home and it would enter in my jacket pocket.

Tiago.
 
The day you start leaving lenses at home is the day you start missing out on shots due to lack of range/options by being restricted! If you have the full range and better IQ (yes mine is also better from the 18-55 range than my kit zoom) then you have many more shooting opportunities.
 
One other thought for the people stating it's too expensive, think about this:

The kit zoom costs £250 new (goes for about £200 secondhand on eBay) and the new 55-200 will not cost less than £250 either (MINIMUM!) so there's £500 straight away yet the 18-200 is only £650 so for convenience of an all-round lens with better IQ for just £150 extra (Maximum!) I think only a fool would refuse.....

Maybe I'm a fool but each to their own! :P
 
Why are NEX lenses much more expensive compared to Alpha lenses? Sony's Alpha 18-200 cost a few hundred bucks less compared to the NEX version. Shouldn't it be chepaer since the NEX is aimed at photographers who are upgrading from PnS?

Regarding whether to go for 18-55 + 55-200 or 18-200, I'm in the same situation. I plan to wait till the release of 55-200 before deciding. Honestly, the 18-200 is way to expensive for what its worth.
 
Drunken Jedi said:
Why are NEX lenses much more expensive compared to Alpha lenses? Sony's Alpha 18-200 cost a few hundred bucks less compared to the NEX version. Shouldn't it be chepaer since the NEX is aimed at photographers who are upgrading from PnS?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the 18-200 lenses for A-mount are an older, inferior design. Better to compare with the 18-250, which is newer and said to be much better. I see that it's $580 from a major online retailer. Still a bit cheaper than the E-mount 18-200, but the latter adds OSS and in-lens focusing, which has to add to the cost a bit.

Sony seemed to aim mostly at the P&S upgrader, but it has so many features that seem to accommodate more knowledgeable users, I think they must have given thought to satisfying more than one kind of user. But, some people have said that the 18-200 was aimed more at the video market, but I don't know.
Drunken Jedi said:
Regarding whether to go for 18-55 + 55-200 or 18-200, I'm in the same situation. I plan to wait till the release of 55-200 before deciding. Honestly, the 18-200 is way to expensive for what its worth.
Click to expand...
If the 55-200 is a reasonable price and of the same quality as the A-mount version, it'll be a no-brainer for me... for the 55-200. I've been happy with my A-mount Tamron verison. It's inexpensive, plenty sharp, and usable wide-open. Plus, it's just f4 through much of its range. I use it indoors when I need more reach. At 150mm, it's probably f4.5, and I get decent results. If Sony can keep the price near $200-250, I'll probably pick it up at some point.

$250 seems a lot better than $800, too. :-)
--
Gary W.
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
One other thought for the people stating it's too expensive, think about this:

The kit zoom costs £250 new (goes for about £200 secondhand on eBay)
Click to expand...
But most of us already have this! So I don't have to shell out more money for something I already ahve....
SparkleHedgehog said:
and the new 55-200 will not cost less than £250 either (MINIMUM!) so there's £500 straight away yet the 18-200 is only £650 so for convenience of an all-round lens with better IQ for just £150 extra (Maximum!) I think only a fool would refuse.....
Click to expand...
$250, maybe. The A-mount version is down to $200!
SparkleHedgehog said:
Maybe I'm a fool but each to their own! :P
Click to expand...
$250 or $800? This fool will probably choose the cheaper lens that still produces quality photos, but hey, it's probably just me. ;-)
--
Gary W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top