Currently, I am considering getting an 18-105mm for my D40 to have a walk around and travel lens. I use the 18-55mm and 55-200mm as well at the 35mm f1.8. I've been using 35mm a lot more recently.
Here's what Thom Hogan has to say about the 18-55mm and 55-200, especially the VR versions.
http://bythom.com/rationallenses.htm
Economy DX
First up, let’s go the economy route for DX sensor DSLRs (basically all Nikon mount DSLRs except for the D700, D3, D3s, D3x, and the Kodak Pro 14n/SLRn). Here’s the low-cost portfolio that makes sense to me:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX
55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR DX
(If you need more reach, the 55-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR DX is pretty much optically the same as the 55-200mm in the shared range. If you need a fast normal lens, augment the set with the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX.)
What you give up in the economy kit is low-light capability. Both these lenses use 52mm filters, which means you can standardize on a small filter set. You’re going to use the 18-55mm on the camera most of the time, swapping in the 55-200mm when you need real telephoto. These lenses are far better than you'd expect for their low cost. Indeed, each generation of the 18-55mm has improved to the point where the current VR version has little to complain about in terms of performance. What you have is near state-of-the-art optics between 18mm and 70mm. At f/8 and f/11 and those focal lengths, this kit can produce results pretty much on par with the more expensive lenses you covet. Even at 200mm the results hold up quite well, though they're not state-of-the-art. Neither of these lenses is much prone to chromatic aberration, and neither has high levels of linear distortion. Both tend to have significant light fall-off wide open, but it rapidly drops to acceptable levels. The VR works, and the AF-S makes for reasonably snappy focus, though it isn't the same speed AF-S as the more expensive lenses. Let me put it another way: in terms of image quality, these two low-cost lenses have very little to complain about. They produce very nice images.
What these lenses don't have is a lot of mechanical or build quality finesse. They are made of polycarbonates (even the mounts) and aren't going to withstand outright abuse well. The zoom and focus rings aren't the best Nikon has produced, though they work decently enough. Both lenses are very small and light. The lens hood designs are terrible and prone to break.
The only way you can improve on the economy kit is to spend much more money. Even buying used lenses will cost you a lot more money to make any tangible improvement. For example, the next step up in image quality for the telephoto end would be a used 80-200mm f/2.8, and that'll come at more than double the cost of the 55-200mm. True, you then get a wider maximum aperture, slightly better 200mm results, better build quality, and a tripod mount, but you also get a big increase in size and weight.
The Leave-Out-The-Middle-Go-DX-As-Light-as-Possible option (the “Galen”):
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR (not yet reviewed on this site)
55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR
Yep, they're back! The modern equivalent of Galen’s travel lenses would be a 14mm f/2.8 and the 55-200mm, but I'd settle for this duo. With a D3100, these two lenses plus the 35mm f/1.8G DX are the bomb as far as light and good.
Again, those of you considering going the Super Zoom route (18-200mm, or perhaps the new Tamron 28-300mm): don't. The 18-200mm is a good lens, but it is out performed by both combos I just mentioned.
--
v steffel
frame frame! shoot shoot! sauvette!
