105mm vs. 18-200mm

[nikonfxfan]

If you own a DX body (D50, D70/s, D80, D90 and up), it does not matter the lens; AF lenses and AF-S lenses will work on the body. If you own a FX body, then the lens is important. But lenses like the 24-70, 70-200 are not designed for only FX bodies and they will work perfectly on the D90 (they will like all other lenses havea 1.5 increase on the focal length)

If you want a "All in One" lens, then yes the 18-200 is the only choice, although the more a lens zooms, the more the image quality will decrease. You have that lens in both your "kits" lenses. Get the one lens you dont have, the 105mm VR. Great for both portraits and macro work.

 

[Alan92RTTT]

As the others have said the 18-200 is expensive. I thought about it but its just too much for what you get.

The 55-200 is nice. I have the 18-55 and the 55-200. I seem to always find the picture I want is just a bit further than the 55 when I have the 18-55 and just a touch closer than the 55-200 wants to go. You might want to look at the 18-105.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

the 50 1.8, 18-55VR, and 55-200VR are some of nikon's best values. No the 18-55 nor 55-200 are very fast, nor are they built well, but they're sharp and the 18-55 actually has less distortion than the 17-55 f/2.8.


The 16-85VR is a super lens if you want a good replacement for the 18-55.

 

[SushiWarrior]

No the 18-55 nor 55-200 are very fast, nor are they built well, but they're sharp and the 18-55 actually has less distortion than the 17-55 f/2.8.

I find that hard to believe, my 18-55 is verging on fisheye at 18mm.... but it does make for an EXCELLENT close focus lens.