upgrading 18-105 to 18-200

[rbakerjr]

I've had a D90 with 18-105 lens for about 3 years and I've really loved it but I keep thinking I'd like a little more reach. I don't want a 2 lens solution, though. I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone else that has bought the Nikon 18-200 after having the 18-105. Was it worth the expense? I had tried the Sigma 18-250 and I really liked the extra range but it had some issues where the auto focus would lock up which did not inspire confidence. The reality is, I don't need the extra focal length that often, but sometimes it seems like it would be nice.

BH Photo has refurbished lenses at a good price (relatively). Any experience buying refurbished?

I appreciate any opinions.

 

[waiman]

You might get more reach but I think you're actually downgrading when it comes to IQ. The 18-105 is a very good lens with good IQ better than 18-200 IMO. Get the 55-200, keep the 18-105 and still save a few hundred bucks.

 

[Holmes375]

I've owned the 18-105 VR and found it a nice lens, especially considering its affordable price point.

I currently own and prefer the 16-85 VR for its better build quality and the wider field of view. I use it primarily for landscape work.

I also own the 18-200 VR (second version), for when I need the one lens solution. Its an excellent jack-of-all-trades and I cannot imagine you will see any loss of image quality in your photos under real world conditions when compared to the 18-105 VR.

People love to bash this lens as well as the "one lens solution" theory in general. Good for them - they don't walk my path. I use the lens quite often when kayaking/canoeing. Sure, the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combo would outperform the super-zoom but lens changes while under way in a sea kayak are unwieldy.

When I'm packing a camera along in the car or just walking the natural world, the super-zoom gives me a competent compact photography machine.

The 18-200 VR is a compromise lens but it will do a fine job if one learns its strong points and doesn't try to do things it was never designed to do. But then the same holds true regarding the 18-105 VR and it performs rather poorly at 136-200mm

The current price of the 18-200 VR II is a put off. I bought mine used and its a nice sample that has treated me very well. I'd certainly buy it again.

Good luck to you.

--
Holmes
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

 

[WIMorrison]

18-200 is an excellent single lens solution and it will give you superb images that are sharp and with good contrast.

 

[MPA1]

You are not upgrading, you are changing completely!

IME no 'do it all' lens solution is as good as picking the best solutions. I have a 28-300 which is a fine walk around lens for snaps but I dislike the IQ for actual paid work so it rarely gets to see daylight but if I need a super-light option then it is there.

Best advice is to try before you buy - hire or borrow if you can.

 

[Bjorn_L]

The 18-200 is not better than the 18-105. it is not as good. It is not an upgrade.

If you are unwilling to change lenses, you should sell the DSLR and get a P&S. The primary advantage of a DSLR is to be able to change lenses to one best suited to the task at hand. You do not need 20 lenses to get this done. It all depends on what kind of photo you want to take.

If you just want to get more "zoomed in". Get the Nikon 55-300vr for a light weight long lens or the Sigma 50-500 os if you don't mind a bit more weight. Both are big zoom lenses which seems to be what you want. Both will deliver better image qualty (combined with your current 18-105) over the entire 18-200 range. If image quality does not matter, then we're back to why in the world would someone with such a strange approach to photography ever spring for a dslr in the first place.

My suggestion: Skip the long lens for now. Instead try a cheap lens with higher image quality such as the Nikon 35mm f1.8g. Costs very little. Exploring its capabilities and how it differs from your 18-105 will open your eyes. Also it is really "more different" from your 18-105 than the 18-200 is.

On the reasonable chance that I completely missed how important reach is for you, try to rent a 55-300vr or 70-300vr (better but heavier). These will give you much more reach than the 18-200. And there is enough overlap that you will never be caught guessing which lens you should be using.

The 18-200vr is a reasonable lens for what it is meant to be, a jack-of-all-trades. It is ok for times when you will suddenly have to go from wide to tele. Or simply can not change lenses. For example, a trip to Disneyland. But even at these locations the need for a 18-200 is complete rubbish. On our last trip to an amusement park, I had the d90 equivalent of an 17-50, 50-200 as well as a 13mm wide angle prime and a 35mm normal (actual lenses were a 28-75, 70-300vr, 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4g on a d700). This was all in a nice tidy little sling bag (LowePro Sling 200AW). it didn't weigh much. I was never caught juggling lenses. I am very happy with the results and extremely happy I was not one of those with a single lens wondering how much IQ I gave up in the cause of laziness.

Get a 18-200 if you want. But it is a special purpose lens in my opinion and not a replacement for your current lens.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

 

[mbecke]

I probably would not recommend such a switch. The 18-105 kit lens is a good quality lens. Sharpness, contrast and color rendition are all good. I think that it is a little sharper than the 18-200 across the overlapping focal length. The 18-200 is more versatile since it offers somewhat more reach at the telephoto end. It is a perfectly OK all purpose walk-around lens. The 18-200 offers adequate sharpness, contrast, etc., but nothing particularly outstanding. However, is it worth the cost of the "upgrade"; probably not. I returned my 18-200 shortly after purchase; I still have and use the 18-105 kit lens. My $0.02 cents for what it is worth.

 

[aeschylus]

The 18-200vr is a reasonable lens for what it is meant to be, a jack-of-all-trades. It is > ok for times when you will suddenly have to go from wide to tele. Or simply can not > change lenses. For example, a trip to Disneyland. But even at these locations the > need for a 18-200 is complete rubbish.

So it's a reasonable lens but the need to use it is complete rubbish . . . . ?

 

[xsimplyjosh]

I rather you upgrade to fast glass like a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G DX [or a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC/non-vc (cheaper at a pricepoint of 400-500$] and pair it up with something like a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR. Much better for your money.

With super zooms like 18-200... you're going to expect a LOT of compromises for the price you pay in the design of the lens. In many aspects this could include uneven softness, distortion or heavy fringing and many other more. Lenses are likely where all your money goes into for the images YOU want best, so don't settle for extreme zoom coverage, this is my opinion.

Also just to note, from my experience the difference in zoom-close up between 105 and 200m is very small, so probably not a "upgrade"... I would classify upgrade in going to better quality/faster lenses for the shooting you do. With the money you have to pay for 18-105mm to a 18-200mm, you COULD save that cash... and get something like a fast DX prime (e.g. the 35mm f1.8G)

I've had a D90 with 18-105 lens for about 3 years and I've really loved it but I keep thinking I'd like a little more reach. I don't want a 2 lens solution, though. I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone else that has bought the Nikon 18-200 after having the 18-105. Was it worth the expense? I had tried the Sigma 18-250 and I really liked the extra range but it had some issues where the auto focus would lock up which did not inspire confidence. The reality is, I don't need the extra focal length that often, but sometimes it seems like it would be nice.

BH Photo has refurbished lenses at a good price (relatively). Any experience buying refurbished?

I appreciate any opinions.

--
Josh - D700 ; Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ; SB-900

 

[Bjorn_L]

The 18-200vr is a reasonable lens for what it is meant to be, a jack-of-all-trades. It is > ok for times when you will suddenly have to go from wide to tele. Or simply can not > change lenses. For example, a trip to Disneyland. But even at these locations the > need for a 18-200 is complete rubbish.

So it's a reasonable lens but the need to use it is complete rubbish . . . . ?

There have been more than 1 post about how it is vital for trips to disney land. It is this "need" I was commenting on. There are other occasions where a J-O-A-T is a reasonable choice.

For example, I have an outing where photography is not planned but you want to bring more than a P&S. I had a 28-300 on my d700 when much to my surprise we drove past a sailboat regatta.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

 

[alasta]

People love to bash this lens as well as the "one lens solution" theory in general. Good for them - they don't walk my path. I use the lens quite often when kayaking/canoeing. Sure, the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combo would outperform the super-zoom but lens changes while under way in a sea kayak are unwieldy.

Sorry to digress from the original subject, but I'm curious to know what you use to protect your equipment while kayaking.

I spend quite a lot of time around water in the summer and would like something a bit better than the AW100 so I was thinking that a P7100 with underwater housing might be the best option, but if I could get some reasonably effective protection for my D90 then that would be better.

 

[Warren Grubb]

For my $.02 I would go for a Nikon 28/300 lens. It's only about $90.00 more than the
!8/200 and in my opinion a good step up.

 

[WIMorrison]

...

But it is a special purpose lens in my opinion and not a replacement for your current lens.
...

Special purpose lens - absolute tosh, it is a general purpose lens that suits most photographers looking for a single walkabout lens - and I would consider it an upgrade from the kit lens.

I wonder how many of you dissing this lens own one or have actually tried to use one, all the people that I know who have one think it is extremely useful and that it provides excellent results when used correctly - the same goes for any other lens.

I cannot understand why any mention of a 18-200 lens on this forum immediately results in a diatribe of negativity.

 

[aeschylus]

I cannot understand why any mention of a 18-200 lens on this forum immediately results in a diatribe of negativity.

Perhaps it’s because the naysayers have acquired a plethora of lenses and can’t stomach the concept that one size fits all . . . .

 

[RBFresno]

18-200 is an excellent single lens solution and it will give you superb images that are sharp and with good contrast.

Hi!

Allthough it can be a useful lens, I'm not sure that the 18-200VR deserves across the board superlatives.

I'd personally feel more comfortable saying that:

18-200 is an acceptable single lens solution for some and under some circumstances , for some people , it will give images that many would consider superb images that are sharp and with good contrast.

I have an 18-200VR. I seldom use use it.
On the other hand, it seldom leaves my wife's DSLR; she's very happy with it.

However, in the right hands, this lens can indeed produce great results.

Would you believe that a Popular Photography "Picture of the Year" was taken with a 18-200VR?
It's true:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27058759

But, then again, it was taken by wildlife master photographer Tom Mangelsen who knew that he could get a good image by stopping down and using the mid portion of the 18-200VR's focal range.

Tom can afford to have essentially any lens he wants. My guess is that he was using the 18-200VR because he was in Antarctica and didn't want to chance any snowflake-finds-sensor lens changes.

Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[john Clinch]

If you are unwilling to change lenses, you should sell the DSLR and get a P&S. The primary advantage of a DSLR is to be able to change lenses to one best suited to the task at hand. You do not need 20 lenses to get this done. It all depends on what kind of photo you want to take.

I think the reaons for owning a DSLR and one lens might be that you need

A real view finder
Phase detect autofocus
Good sensor

No non DSLR offers all of these. Most have non.

I've ony had a 18-70 for ages and I can assure you lots of what I do can't be done on a point and shoot
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/

 

[TFergus]

If you are unwilling to change lenses, you should sell the DSLR and get a P&S. The primary advantage of a DSLR is to be able to change lenses

Is this really the main difference you see between a DSLR and a P&S ?!

 

[hoof]

I cannot understand why any mention of a 18-200 lens on this forum immediately results in a diatribe of negativity.

Perhaps it’s because the naysayers have acquired a plethora of lenses and can’t stomach the concept that one size fits all . . . .

I have owned a Nikon 18-200, and shot thousands of photos with it. I even got the Tamron 18-270 VC to get more reach later on. Ultimately, I realized two things:

1) I only stayed in one range (either wide or long) for a chunk of photos at a time, so swapping lenses once in while was fine

2) IQ mattered more and more to me, and narrower-range zooms gave me noticably better IQ. In particular, the IQ loss from the Nikon to the Tamron really bothered me (but was no worse than the IQ difference between the 16-85mm and the 18-200)

So I don't have a superzoom anymore. I have either a Tamron 17-50 VC or Nikon 16-85mm VR (depending on the light), matched to either a Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-200 VRII, again depending on anticipated conditions. And so far I've been happer with them, and the IQ is better than either of my superzooms were.

I keep toying with the new Tamron 18-270 PZD, as it's as small as the Nikon 16-85mm (nice and compact). Mostly for situations like Bjorn says, when I don't care as much for IQ, and bring a camera along "just in case". Then, the single (compact) superzoom in a small sized/weighted kit might be useful. Two lenses (a 70-300 + 16-85mm) would be just too big a kit to haul around everywhere. But I haven't pulled the trigger yet, and would end up likely not using it all that much.

 

[markinvictoria]

People love to bash this lens as well as the "one lens solution" theory in general. Good for them - they don't walk my path. I use the lens quite often when kayaking/canoeing. Sure, the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combo would outperform the super-zoom but lens changes while under way in a sea kayak are unwieldy.

Sorry to digress from the original subject, but I'm curious to know what you use to protect your equipment while kayaking.

I spend quite a lot of time around water in the summer and would like something a bit better than the AW100 so I was thinking that a P7100 with underwater housing might be the best option, but if I could get some reasonably effective protection for my D90 then that would be better.

--

I do a fair amount of photography from a kayak and have a Pelican 1200 case which will hold my D50 or D90 with my Sigma 18-200 attached. A sturdy water-proof case. I recently came across situations where more reach is needed...I just received my Flashpoint UW Pro case 1400 from Adorama...haven't tried it yet...but it should hold my D90 with Tamron 70-300 VC attached plus another lens. Adorama had it on sale for $39.95 with free shipping. Not built quite as well as the Pelican...but should be fine if not submerged for over a minute or two.
Mark O

 

[markinvictoria]

People love to bash this lens as well as the "one lens solution" theory in general. Good for them - they don't walk my path. I use the lens quite often when kayaking/canoeing. Sure, the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combo would outperform the super-zoom but lens changes while under way in a sea kayak are unwieldy.

Sorry to digress from the original subject, but I'm curious to know what you use to protect your equipment while kayaking.

I spend quite a lot of time around water in the summer and would like something a bit better than the AW100 so I was thinking that a P7100 with underwater housing might be the best option, but if I could get some reasonably effective protection for my D90 then that would be better.

--

I do a fair amount of photography from a kayak and have a Pelican 1200 case which will hold my D50 or D90 with my Sigma 18-200 attached. A sturdy water-proof case. I recently came across situations where more reach is needed...I just received my Flashpoint UW Pro case 1400 from Adorama...haven't tried it yet...but it should hold my D90 with Tamron 70-300 VC attached plus another lens. Adorama had it on sale for $39.95 with free shipping. Not built quite as well as the Pelican...but should be fine if not submerged for over a minute or two.
Mark O

--
Mark O