Question about a Nikon lens

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by mkgiver, Aug 19, 2007.

  1. mkgiver

    mkgiver TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a nikon 18-135mm lens and would like to get the 18-200mm VR. Is this a significantly better lens than the 135? I want more reach for wildlife photography. Should I stick with what I have? Also, I just got the nikon 105 micro. What other lens would round out my D80 package? Thanks.
     
  2. jstuedle

    jstuedle No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,889
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    S.E. Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    A difficult question only you can answer. We all have our own styles, subjects and desires. These and other factors make these decisions for us. Are you wanting to only pack one lens? Could you just add say a prime 180mm to your kit and not duplicate the 18--135 range? Were you going to sell the 18-135? Will you need more speed (aperture size) than these lenses can provide now or in the future? Do you have, will you want any primes to fill in focal length gaps? So many questions only you can answer, this is what makes us all unique in our approach to this craft.
     
  3. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    I very, very much doubt that the 18-200 is a significantly better lens than the 18-135. In fact I doubt it's better at all; in terms of optical performance if anything I would expect it to be slightly worse. A zoom lens usually has to make compromises, and a super-zoom makes more than most. And needless to say a super-super zoom makes even more. Also the 18-200mm is no faster (in terms of max aperture) than the 18-135. The 18-200 doesn't seem to have much of an advantage in build quality either. Basically it's selling point (other than covering a huge range of focal lengths) is the VR... and while this in some situations will surely be very helpful, it only counteracts lens vibration - it doesn't help freeze movement of your subject or actually let more light into the lens, as a faster lens would.

    If your interest is wildlife then it is likely that some animals may be moving at fair speed, and VR will not help in that situation. Also wildlife photography is obviously a diverse area of photography and so I cannot say this for certain, but it is certainly possible that you may find 200mm is not quite long enough either.

    Personally I would be inclined to keep the 18-135, and possibly look at a a zoom going up to around 400mm for the longer "reach"... or alternatively a prime as jstuedle recommended, if a faster lens were required. Depending on your budget you might be able to stretch to a fast zoom. These are of course just suggestions, and as jstuedle points out only you can really make the decision. I'd just advise against replacing the 18-135 with the 18-200 expecting it to be significantly better... some lenses absolutely live up to their hype... I personally doubt the 18-200 is one of them.
     
  4. mkgiver

    mkgiver TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you both for your input. You have given me something to think about.
     
  5. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    For wildlife, you're going to want to look into fast telephoto primes for the shallow DOF and speed.
     

Share This Page