Nikon 18-200: Consolidating lenses

[william542]

So an ideal situation would be owning multiple DSLR's, each with different lenses for different situations and just switching between the camera's huh?

Thanks for the input guys!

Actually, yes

For shooting field sports I usually have lenses mounted on 3 camera bodies.

A gripped D300 with a Nikon 200-400 mm f/4 zoom, and that combo is on a monopod.
On my right hip on a Black Rapid sling is another gripped D300 with an 80-200 mm f/2.8 mounted.
On my left hip on a Black Rapid sling is a D3 with a 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 mounted. All together, $16,000 worth of camera gear. AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED

All that expensive gear, I'd expect more from your website???
I only saw about 30 pictures on there and frankly wasn't impressed.

 

[Polygon]

I had the version II of this lens, got it for $300. IMO it is the worst lens I have ever used. It is an "all in one" solution but you are indeed sacrificing quality.

DONT DO IT.

Care to clarify?

I think that lens was one of the best investments ever, especially when I'm not on a dedicated photo-trip. I would have missed a lot of shots where suddenly something showed up that required me to go 200mm quickly. Although I find myself just taking the 35/1.8 as of lately. It's even lighter and most of my shots were around that length anyway.

You may call be a hobby photographer now

 

[JohnS.]

I recently went to NYC for a family trip and brought my D40 along. After going on this trip, I think I'm going to invest in the 18-200 after all. I was constantly having to change between my 18-55 and 55-200. It was okay at first but there were times when I had to quickly take pictures and having to change lenses got annoying after a while. So I think it's time to trade get rid of my 18-55/55-200 for the 18-200.

I'm not a serious photographer by any means so any "loss in quality" over more dedicated lenses isn't a big issue for me.

 

[KmH]

All that expensive gear, I'd expect more from your website???
I only saw about 30 pictures on there and frankly wasn't impressed.

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me. :lmao:

Does that mean you didn't buy anything while you were there?

You can't please all the people, all the time.

 

[cnutco]

For the most part, you have to sacrifice quality for convenience when it comes to lenses. Many photographers will avoid zoom lenses that have a greater than 3x or 4x zoom range. So 17-55mm is good, 24-70mm is good, 70-200mm is good....18-200 is more than 10x, so they probably had to compromise the design, and you usually end up with poor performance at either end of the zoom.

I have heard that the Nikon 18-200mm is one of the best 'super zoom' lenses, and it might even be as good or better than the cheap zoom lenses you have now. But if your goal is better quality, you might want to rethink. But if the convenience is worth it for you, then it might be a good option.

What do you guys think? Consolidate? I've been to a couple sporting events and 200mm isn't quite as far as I'd like to reach (I know it's equivalent to a longer zoom on an FX).

It's only 'equivalent' to a longer zoom when you are comparing the field of view to a lens on a camera with a bigger sensor (or 35mm film). If you don't have or use a full frame/film SLR, then you shouldn't think that you get 'longer zoom' on your FX camera.

I have all the leneses that Mike speaks of and I used the 18 - 200 for a while before I broke down and bought the others. It is a great little lenes for taking snap shots. BUT, it is a great lenes to learn with.

Yes, I still have mine, but it is not in my bag of tricks... It stays in one of the bags that I grew out of back at the house.

If I had your current set up, then NO, I would not have bought it.

Good luck