105mm vs. 18-200mm

[mommy22]

Okay-soI am in the mood (and market) for a new lense. I currently have: Nikon lenses: 18-55mm kit lense, 70-300mm kit lense, 50mm 1.8

I am between the Nikon 18-200mm and the Nikon 105mm Micro (macro).

I know they are different lenses but I don't know if I should get the all encompassing 18-200 and sell my 2 kit lenses or if I should add a macro to my mix of toys. I just shoot for fun, mostly my girls, inanimate objects and whatever else captures my fancy. I would love to get a macro lense, mostly to take pics of bugs etc, at the same time, I don't want to ave to lug around a big bag of lenses either.

One other question: Tamron vs Sigma vs Nikon?

Thanks guys!

 

[Live_free]

Macro, the 18-200 is 3.5-5.6 I believe. Basically it is another "kit" lens. Definitely go with the macro if you like that kind of stuff.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Go with the 105VR. If the 70-300 is the VR version, it's a good lens, the only suitible replacement would be a 70-200 2.8.

A good replacement for the 18-55 in the general range is the 35 1.8.

 

[cnutco]

Go with the macro! The lenses you already have take care of what the 18 - 200 would.

 

[TJ K]

Macro! Macro! Macro! sorry but I just think you should get the macro

 

[KmH]

Go with the 105VR. If the 70-300 is the VR version, it's a good lens, the only suitible replacement would be a 70-200 2.8.

A good replacement for the 18-55 in the general range is the 35 1.8.

+1.

The AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR (if that's what you have) is not a kit lens. In fact, it's an FX lens. The non VR 70-300 is not a very good lens, but it's inexpensive.

The Nikon 18-200mm is not only a kit lens, it's not a very good one either. It is the worst value in Nikon's entire current lens lineup, IMO.

Like all super zooms (10x+ zoom range) it's a collection of various design compromises making it a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none proposition and delivers flawed results over it's entire zoom range.

In the zoom range (short focal lengths) where it produces sharp focus it has heavy distortion. When the distortion finally starts getting under control at the longer focal lengths the focus starts getting soft.

In short, the 18-200 is an expensive, but convenient, snapshot lens and can easily be outperformed by a combination of less expensive standard and telephoto zooms.

It has to be said that many people value the convenience of the 11x+ zoom range and not having to carry/change other lenses over the image quality issues.

 

[gsgary]

Personally i would never consider a lens with as much zoom as a 18-200

 

[ks0385]

Go with the 105VR. If the 70-300 is the VR version, it's a good lens, the only suitible replacement would be a 70-200 2.8.

A good replacement for the 18-55 in the general range is the 35 1.8.

+1.

The AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR (if that's what you have) is not a kit lens. In fact, it's an FX lens. The non VR 70-300 is not a very good lens, but it's inexpensive.

The Nikon 18-200mm is not only a kit lens, it's not a very good one either. It is the worst value in Nikon's entire current lens lineup, IMO.

Like all super zooms (10x+ zoom range) it's a collection of various design compromises making it a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none proposition and delivers flawed results over it's entire zoom range.

In the zoom range (short focal lengths) where it produces sharp focus it has heavy distortion. When the distortion finally starts getting under control at the longer focal lengths the focus starts getting soft.

In short, the 18-200 is an expensive, but convenient, snapshot lens and can easily be outperformed by a combination of less expensive standard and telephoto zooms.

It has to be said that many people value the convenience of the 11x+ zoom range and not having to carry/change other lenses over the image quality issues.

Hmmm, I was planning on getting a D90 Body and the 18-200mm lens. But from reading this, I am thinking it's not the best idea.

EDIT: Should I just go with the Kit Lens? Or is there a better one out there? I'm looking for quality of pictures. The 24-70mm is way too expensive for me.

 

[cnutco]

Hmmm, I was planning on getting a D90 Body and the 18-200mm lens. But from reading this, I am thinking it's not the best idea.

EDIT: Should I just go with the Kit Lens? Or is there a better one out there? I'm looking for quality of pictures. The 24-70mm is way too expensive for me.

The expensive 24 - 70 is a FX lens. You could look at some of the other lenses like the 18 - 55 and the 55 - 200. These are made for the DX bodies.

On the other hand, a lot of ppl herewill say that they love there kit lens and still get great results from them.

 

[table1349]

The big issue with a lens like the 18-200 is the large range of zoom. Zoom lenses by their very nature are a compromise to one degree or another. In a consumer grade lens, such as the 18-200 that compromise can be fairly large in terms of sharpness, Chromatic Aberation, etc.

In top of the line glass the compromise is usually minimal, and usually in the area of sharpness compared to a comparable top of the line prime. A comparable prime is always going to be sharper that the equivalent zoom. The appeal of a zoom is the versatility that it offers. That versatility comes with the above mentioned trade offs.

 

[D-B-J]

The macro!! I have the older version (2.8D) with no vr, and i love it!! What an awesome lens!! It takes flawless pictures, and beautiful macro's.

Half the time i leave my zoom lens inside and walk around my yard with this lens. Definately worth it, and i can imagine that the newer version with vr is even better!

 

[mommy22]

No, my 70-300mm is not a VR and performs okay at best. I went to look at lenses and the 18-200 did not impress me.

 

[KmH]

Hmmm, I was planning on getting a D90 Body and the 18-200mm lens. But from reading this, I am thinking it's not the best idea.

EDIT: Should I just go with the Kit Lens? Or is there a better one out there? I'm looking for quality of pictures. The 24-70mm is way too expensive for me.

Less expensive than the 24-70 is the AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D.

For wide angle I use the AF-S 12-24mm f/4G.

For longer range, the last would be the AF 80-200 f/2.8D.

You would have 12 mm to 200 mm covered and still have some good lens speed.

As suggested by cnutco the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR would be about the least expensive route to take. Both lenses have a variable maximum aperture, which keeps the cost down, but both lenses can produce good image quality if used in their 'sweet spots'.

 

[Dao]

Hmmm, I was planning on getting a D90 Body and the 18-200mm lens. But from reading this, I am thinking it's not the best idea.

EDIT: Should I just go with the Kit Lens? Or is there a better one out there? I'm looking for quality of pictures. The 24-70mm is way too expensive for me.

You can also take a look at the lens from the 3rd party lens manufacturers.

Sigma and Tamron have a fast standard zoom lenses which are pretty decent.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM.

 

[Hardrock]

Macro!! It opens up a whole new can of worms!