nikon 18-55 vr lens or nikon 18-200 vr lens?

[blue534]

hi. i will be beginner. which lens is good quality in the photos. when i search in the sites, i see that 18-55mm vr have better quality in the photos. thanks...

 

[nikonpreap]

huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this

 

[Samriel]

huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this

Obviously not the year that technology has evolved enough that a lens with a zoom ration of over 10 is optically superior to the one with a zoom ratio of 3.

I'd say you should go for either the 18-55mm, or get a a good third party lens, like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro, or Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 - gives you much better value for your money. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens, but it does have somewhat inferior image quality, and it tends to make people lazy (why buy a dSLR and not change lenses?).

Good luck!

 

[dEARlEADER]

huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this

well this is 2009..... the 18-55 has less barrel distortion at 18mm, is nominally sharper, and has a sturdier build reputation.

the 18-200 kills the 18-55 in image quality at focal ranges of 56mm and above and has VRII giving an extra stop...

it's a little silly to compare these two lenses as some compromise in image quality is a fact of life in superzooms...

having said that..... grabbing the 18-200 and DXO Optics would give you unrivaled convenience and top notch consumer image quality.

you have to consider your budget and appetite for focal range.... if you mostly shoot 18-55, but can afford the 18-200, then get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as suggested below.

i wouldn't worry too much about the "lazy" label associated with a superzoom.... you prove your worth with great images, not how many times you had to change your lens to get that great image.

 

[dcclark]

OK, lots of technical discussion. I recommend not bothering worrying about details of lens quality until you're past the "beginner" stage, and understand the basics of photography better. At that point, you may be in a position to evaluate lenses based on your own needs and ideas. For now, the 18-55 VR is a very good lens, and you won't notice its limitations for quite a while.

 

[dcclark]

... (why buy a dSLR and not change lenses?) ...

Because I travel a lot and want the additional features and flexibility of a DSLR, but not the additional pain of carrying a bag full of lenses. I actually bought my 18-200 VR after a long trip in which my camera bag caused me nothing but trouble, getting lost, being in my way, etc. After that, I sold off several of my old lenses which it completely replaced.

We all have different reasons for what we do, and blanket labels about lenses or styles really don't help.

 

[dEARlEADER]

For now, the 18-55 VR is a very good lens, and you won't notice its limitations for quite a while.

unless the op is constantly looking to twist the focus ring past 55mm

 

[dcclark]

unless the op is constantly looking to twist the focus ring past 55mm

Very good point. However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.

 

[JerryPH]

While the 2 lenses are apples and oranges, the 18-200 will always be the better lens. It will also be more versatile.

The issues with the 18-200:
- soft on both ends
- vignettes at both ends

These issues are both easily resolved in post process within a few clicks. What the 18-200 does that the 18-55 doesn't are:

- has less barrel distortion at the short end
- has less pin cushioning
- has better sharpness... matter of fact, it has the sharpness of the near $2000 70-200 F/2.8 lens in between 50-150mm at apertures around F/10-F/13
- has greater focal range
- has VR
- and it has a bigger price for the extra "stuff".

The 18-200 is the ultimate walk around lens and I use it a lot to this day... however, when ultimate quality is what I desire, the 18-200 comes off and is replaced with something better.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Very good point. However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.

no doubt...

 

[JerryPH]

Very good point. However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.

If you look at the sweet spots on both lenses, they are both going to be so close as to be inseperable... however that sweet spot on the 18-200 is between 50-150mm and on the 18-55 between 30-45mm. Both are sharpest over F/10 as well.

Again greater versatility goes to the 18-200, but again... there is a $$ to pay.

 

[Samriel]

Because I travel a lot and want the additional features and flexibility of a DSLR, but not the additional pain of carrying a bag full of lenses. I actually bought my 18-200 VR after a long trip in which my camera bag caused me nothing but trouble, getting lost, being in my way, etc. After that, I sold off several of my old lenses which it completely replaced.

We all have different reasons for what we do, and blanket labels about lenses or styles really don't help.

I completely agree, and apologize if my previous post was somewhat misleading.

As mentioned, superzooms are very versatile and practical, especially when size and space is a problem. I'd still suggest you get a third party (Sigma or Tamron) 17-50mm F2.8 unless you really want to save space by using only one lens, or really need the length for shooting subjects that are further away. You'll get better image quality, and some extra cash for your next purchase.

 

[Moonlighter]

for a beginner who travels a lot 18-200will be more suitable.

 

[adamwilliamking]

Very good point. However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.

I would never describe the image quality of that lens anywhere near amazing.

 

[blash]

Why does everyone keep talking about barrel distortion like it's a bad thing? *hugs his 24mm*:razz: