Choosing between 3 "do all" lenses

[ericande]

Ok, I know any lens makes compromises but I need one lens I can use nearly all the time. Most of my shots are taken on rides on my bike, being a sport bike the less I can take the better. I currently have two nikon lenses, a 28-80mm and a 70-300mm that came kitted with my D50. I think I've narrowed down my next lens to one of the following 3.

Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3
Nikon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6
Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR II

I absolutely want something that allows for wider shots then 28mm and offers a decent amount of zoom. I take many different types of shots while on rides, riding (panning) shots, landscape and candids of the group. Since I take panning shots, would VR II be beneficial? Any recommendations?

 

[bitteraspects]

only thing is, youre gonna have trouble with any lense that has that wide of a range. it will have a very narrow sweetspot, and the rest will be a bit soft. if i had to give a suggestion based on those three, id say nikon 18-135. but i think you should be fine with the lenses you have

 

[ericande]

only thing is, youre gonna have trouble with any lense that has that wide of a range. it will have a very narrow sweetspot, and the rest will be a bit soft. if i had to give a suggestion based on those three, id say nikon 18-135. but i think you should be fine with the lenses you have

Ahh, but that's the problem... I want to only take one lens when I go on rides. I basically have a small bag on my tank and switching lenses quickly is a hassle as well. Down the road I will get more, faster and better quality lenses but I really need to decide for me, if I can only take one lens with me... which one. After searching the forums I think I have a grasp on the compromises that these "super" zoom lenses but I have no choice and must decide between these.

 

[bitteraspects]

or you could stick with your current 70-300 for now, and save the money you would use to purchase one of these sub par lenses, and put that money towards one really good lense

 

[Sw1tchFX]

18-200 VR hands down if you can find it. If you can afford the 18-200 VR, than there is no reason you should be considering the others. I've used the Nikon 18-135, the 18-200 VR, and the Tamron 18-200 and not only does the Nikon 18-200 have VR, but it's faster, and it operates very smoothly. I don't know about the sigma, but i'm guessing it's alot like the tamron--junk. You can't even hand hold the tamron at 200mm unless you're in glaring daylight at ISO 200 and above.

 

[benhasajeep]

If you are going to get better down the road. I say go with the Sigma. Why? Way less than the Nikons. The VR will be no help on panning shots. Another reason is there may be a chance you may drop while moving. Less money to break. Also if you are moving while taking pictures. The better lens quality the 18-200 nikon may be a moot point. Now if you stop and take pics from a tripod to get the best possible pics you can. The Nikon is the way to go. But for snapshots while moving / riding. Sigma all the way. The better glass of the Nikon will not make that much difference!

 

[Tiberius]

If you can find it, the 18-200VR kicks the crap out of both the other lenses. Less Distortion, Better Focusing Speed, VR, you name it.

VR II does have a mode that helps with panning shots, although I've never used it much myself (I haven't been able to track down an 18-200 myself yet)

 

[castrol]

You will easily get all of your money back when you go to sell your more expensive
Nikkor lenses when you grow out of them. The cheap ones are just that... cheap.

If you spend $1,000 on the 18-200mm nikkor, your chances are you will get
90% of that back when you move on. Basically it's like getting to use it for free
or at least for very little investment.

~castrol

 

[ericande]

You will easily get all of your money back when you go to sell your more expensive
Nikkor lenses when you grow out of them. The cheap ones are just that... cheap.

If you spend $1,000 on the 18-200mm nikkor, your chances are you will get
90% of that back when you move on. Basically it's like getting to use it for free
or at least for very little investment.

~castrol

Thanks, you answered another question I forgot to ask, resale value...

Benhasajeep, I should clarify... I don't actually take pics while moving, I stop. But I take a lot of action shots of other people riding, I'm getting better but I was wondering how much VR would help as I've gotten my best results being back a ways and zooming to about 100-150mm, far enough for lens shake to be an issue.

Sounds like saving for the VR may be the way to go for now, thanks!

 

[Tiberius]

For taking pictures of moving subjects, you need fast glass. VR just lets you use longer shutter speeds without a tripod, but for moving things, such as people riding, you need incredibly fast shutter speeds, which means expensive and heavy f/2.8 glass. Look into the 80-200 f/2.8D.

 

[ericande]

For taking pictures of moving subjects, you need fast glass. VR just lets you use longer shutter speeds without a tripod, but for moving things, such as people riding, you need incredibly fast shutter speeds, which means expensive and heavy f/2.8 glass. Look into the 80-200 f/2.8D.

I looked at the lens and it seems great but it won't work when I need just one lens. Plus when I take riding shots I typically only use a shutter speed of around 1/200th. I think that will be the next lens I buy though!