lens question

[jl1975]

Hi All,

I would like some opinions regarding which lens to get. I currently have a Nikon D3000 and it came with the Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR. I also have a Nikkor 55-200 4.0-5.6 VR ED. I really like the 55-200, but I am not as impressed with the 18-55. It just doesn't seem to produce images that are as sharp/clear as the longer lens. I think it may be that the longer lens is an ED lens and the shorter lens is not.

Anyways, I have been looking at the 18-200 3.5-5.6 VRII ED. I was thinking that if I got this one, I would be able to get better pictures in the wide angle range and also not have to carry two lenses to be able to cover the range of focus lengths.

Now, I am having second thoughts. I have been looking around and have found that for the same price, I can get an 18-105 and a 55-300 for about the same price as the 18-200. Both of these are VR ED lenses.

What do you think? Would I be better to get the two lenses and have more range to work with? I typically take pictures of my kids at home as well as outdoors for sports (soccer and baseball).

Any suggestions?

 

[tirediron]

I am not a fan of Nikon's 18-200mm lens. It's a "Swiss Army" lens, meaning that it tries do a lot, but doesn't really do any of them very well. It has extreme distortion at both ends of the focal range, and is rather slow as well. I'm not at all familiar with the 55-300, but I suspect that your two-lens option will give you the best quality.

 

[sobolik]

I own both the the 18-105 and the 18-200. I consider them basically the same for quality in the real world. Most people are clueless as to any differences. But some people like to sit around and proclaim one superior than the other. Especially when just repeating what they read. The "flaws" in a modern zoom are more than offset by the modern zooms convienience. The 18-200mm range is a fantastic lens to be "caught with" having on. Lens review: Nikkor 18-105VR vs Nikkor 18-200VR | Images and [re]views

The 18-200 stays on all the time because the 105 always seems just a bit short. I had the 70-300G but sold it. The 70-300 is a rather lousy range to be stuck with having on all the time. For example I was walking around and discovered a lounging porcupine. I would have had to change out of the 70-300 because I was only 2 feet away. Also over the last 30 years I have determined that close up tele photos are rather boring. I find it much better to get closer. The compression effect of tele is not as attractive as the wide angle effect.

I say go with the one lens. I reallly don't like being handicapped by having to change lenses. Often the opportunity is gone. I just crop my 200mm to end up with a 300mm look.

The new version 18-200 has a zoom lock so it don't creep when hanging. You can save money by getting the older version. I don't have any problems with the creep issue.

 

[Jcampbelll]

I say go with the one lens. I reallly don't like being handicapped by having to change lenses. Often the opportunity is gone. I just crop my 200mm to end up with a 300mm look.

Why have a DSLR if you aren't going to change lenses? As mentioned above, you sacrifice optical quality for the convenience of the 18-200

 

[sobolik]

I say go with the one lens. I reallly don't like being handicapped by having to change lenses. Often the opportunity is gone. I just crop my 200mm to end up with a 300mm look.

Why have a DSLR if you aren't going to change lenses? As mentioned above, you sacrifice optical quality for the convenience of the 18-200

Perhaps you missed the part about the opportunity being gone just as quick as it appeared. A blank screen really makes for superior "optical quality"