Replacing 18-55mm/55-200mm with 18-200mm

[curly]

Hi everyone,

I am considering replacing my original kit lens and my 55-200mm zoom with the Nikon 18-200mm. I am wondering if anyone has done the same, or has the 18-200mm and can compare the image quality of this lens to the others?

Will the only benefit be reducing the number of lenses in my bag and the frequency in which I change lenses, or is the image quality noticeably improved on the 18-200?

 

[KmH]

10x+ zoom lenses (superzoom lenses) have to be designed around a laundry list of optical aberration issues.
Consequently 10x+ zoom lenses give varying performance through out the zoom range.
The fact lens designers can use computers to help manage the wide range of design compromises a 10x+ zoom range lens entails still results in a lens that has a variety of image quality issues.

Nikon's 18-200 mm lens has pronounced barrel distortion at 18 mm that gradually gets better as the lens is zoomed out and at about 35 mm the diminished barrel distortion changes to pin cushion distortion. Focus gets extremely soft at around 135 mm. When zoomed to 200 mm but focused at or near the lens close focus distance the magnification delivered is only about what you get at 135 mm. Image quality is good in the normal to short telephoto range, say 50 mm to 100 mm.

Other lens makers superzoom lenses have their own unique issues with focus, distortion, and chromatic aberration being common.

If convenience is more important to you than image quality - get the superzoom.
If image quality is more important, use multiple lenses to cover the 18 mm to 200 mm range.

 

[shadowlands]

The Nikon 18-200 VR is better than most people think. I use to sell landscapes taken with it.
Sitting on a small airplane, over the Molokai sea cliffs, with "active VR" on, priceless!!!
For general work, it's fine.

 

[nerwin]

I never owned the 18-200 VR, but I have heard its a decent performer for what it is. But don't expect prime/2.8 performance. Like @shadowlands said, it's fine for general work or when you just need the convenience for like travel.

Check out DigitalRev's review.

 

[curly]

It would be used mostly for general photos or travel. Otherwise, I would put on one of my primes. The reason I'm considering this is because we just got back from a trip that I found myself continually needing to swap between by 18-55 and 55-200.

 

[nerwin]

It would be used mostly for general photos or travel. Otherwise, I would put on one of my primes. The reason I'm considering this is because we just got back from a trip that I found myself continually needing to swap between by 18-55 and 55-200.

I think it's a smart decision.

 

[fjrabon]

The biggest issue is what you shoot. Nature, it's probably fine. But anything with lines that should be straight will be problematic from 18-24mm and 100-200mm. If you're shooting a sunset, pincushion/ barrel distortion really isn't noticeable. If you're shooting buildings it is. It can be corrected with software, if you set it up right.

It's not a sharp lens, but it's not awful if you shoot it at f/8 as much as possible. My biggest issue with it is that it runs into trouble outside of the f/8-f/11 range. It's very much a lens where you have to consider its weaknesses. You'll need to shoot some things differently than you otherwise might because of the issues, but if you get the image in its sweet spot it can produce some stunning images.

 

[tirediron]

It would be used mostly for general photos or travel. Otherwise, I would put on one of my primes. The reason I'm considering this is because we just got back from a trip that I found myself continually needing to swap between by 18-55 and 55-200.

Better option: Buy a second body and keep both lenses mounted!

 

[jl1975]

I replaced my 18-55 and 55-200 with the Nikon 18-200. It is a good lens for general use. I used that lens almost exclusively for quite some time with no complaints. I too read the reviews and comments about it and questioned it. But in the end, I've been happy with it. I have since added a 70-200 f4 and a 17-50 f2.8 for shots of my kids performances (one dances and the other is in a rock band) where the larger aperture is needed. But, for general use or casual snapshot stuff, it works very well. It all comes down to you and your preferences.

 

[goodguy]

For me sharpness and IQ is No.1 so I wouldn't bother with this lens.

 

[Tailgunner]

It would be used mostly for general photos or travel. Otherwise, I would put on one of my primes. The reason I'm considering this is because we just got back from a trip that I found myself continually needing to swap between by 18-55 and 55-200.

This is exactly what I did. The 18-200mm VR is a nice travel/family lens. I used this and a 50mm 1.8D as my travel set up for a while before retiring them as a back up setup with my D300.

 

[John Hunt]

if you are going to get a super zoom take a look at the Tamron 16-300 decent image quality for what it is and a lot more range.

 

[ruifo]

It would be used mostly for general photos or travel. Otherwise, I would put on one of my primes. The reason I'm considering this is because we just got back from a trip that I found myself continually needing to swap between by 18-55 and 55-200.

It's worthy for this stated purpose. The Sigma 18-250mm and/or the Tamron 16-300mm as well. As said, super zooms are not the best for IQ at all, but they serve to this purpose you mentioned. I still have a Sigma 18-250mm for the same purpose, and don't intend to sell it. And I have other better lenses as well.

 

[The_Traveler]

Having used this lens, I wouldn't go back to it.
Instead I would buy another small body and a longer prime.
A bit more to carry but much better IQ.

 

[goodguy]

Having used this lens, I wouldn't go back to it.
Instead I would buy another small body and a longer prime.
A bit more to carry but much better IQ.

Excellent idea!
Another one is getting a good superzoom camera like the FZ1000 or RX10