18-135 vs. 18-200

[KaleyEs]

I need a new basic walk around lens. Do I go with the easily accessible and cheaper 18-135 or look for an 18-200. I've heard good things about both, but more bad things about the 18-135mm. Any thoughts?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

if you can, the 18-200 or 24-120VR. I use the 24-120 VR because the 18-200 is near impossible to find in stock consistently anywhere, and It's got better optics in it because it's a 5x, not 11x zoom.

I like my 24-120 alot. I use it when my f/2.8's aren't needed, or I just can't carry a bag and need to go light and still cover a wide focal range.

 

[JIP]

I agree 24-120VR if you need to go a longer range this is about as long as you are going to want to get.

 

[KaleyEs]

Does it ever bother you that the 24-120 doesn't go as wide?

 

[The_Traveler]

I've used the 18-200 on trips and it is wonderful walkaround lens.
All of the pics in the Laos links in my sig were shot with that lens.

 

[forzaF1]

My 18-200mm VR has been absolutely wonderful. It is mounted on my D200 about 70% of the time. The VR works wonders and the vast focal range always comes in handy.

 

[L. Wood]

I have used the 18-200 lens for 9 months and I am not really impressed. Bought it because Ken Rockwell says it is the best lens. I can't say that I agree. I am shopping for replacements. If you are not shooting for business purposes than it is a great lens. It you want fabulous quality photos, get something like the 70-200 for distance and I am not sure what to suggest for the rest of the range yet. Good luck.

 

[shingfan]

18-200 VR is a walkaround lense.......it is built for that purpose.......quality and walkaround usually dont mix....if quality is needed.....then you're looking for 18-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I have used the 18-200 lens for 9 months and I am not really impressed. Bought it because Ken Rockwell says it is the best lens. I can't say that I agree. I am shopping for replacements. If you are not shooting for business purposes than it is a great lens. It you want fabulous quality photos, get something like the 70-200 for distance and I am not sure what to suggest for the rest of the range yet. Good luck.

Ken Rockwell shoots Jpeg, that MURDERS quality on Nikons. On a D70 or D100, I'm sure that if you compared the 18-200 to the 17-55 f/2.8, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference in Jpeg, shoot in RAW, the 18-200 still looks like the Jpeg, and the 17-55 drops your jaw.


You've got to be careful about what Ken says. Sometimes he's right, sometimes you wonder where he gets some of the stuff he says.

Does it ever bother you that the 24-120 doesn't go as wide?

Nope. I just step back. I love my 17-55 f/2.8, and 17mm is really about as wide as I feel I ever need to go. I'm not sure how much i'd use a 12-24.