Should I get rid of my 18-200mm Nikkor tele?

[jwbryson1]

And replace it with the 70-300mm Nikkor tele?

I own the 18-55mm kit lens so the 18-200mm is a bit overlapped with that lens. The 70-300mm would give me an additional 100mm with no overlap.

My questions are:

1. Is the 70-300mm a good (better) lens than the 18-200mm?
2. I hate to sell the 18-200mm and then wish I still had a zoom of that magnitude. I'd be giving up the convenience of using a single lens. Anybody else ever made this decision before?

Thanks.

 

[FlyingScot]

And replace it with the 70-300mm Nikkor tele?

I own the 18-55mm kit lens so the 18-200mm is a bit overlapped with that lens. The 70-300mm would give me an additional 100mm with no overlap.

My questions are:

well WHICH 70-300

1. Is the 70-300mm a good (better) lens than the 18-200mm?
2. I hate to sell the 18-200mm and then wish I still had a zoom of that magnitude. I'd be giving up the convenience of using a single lens. Anybody else ever made this decision before?

Thanks.

My questions are:

well WHICH 70-300? Only about five or six Nikon lens of that focal length

go here are do your own research Search KenRockwell.com

 

[480sparky]

Should I get rid of my 18-200mm Nikkor tele?

............. I hate to sell the 18-200mm ...........

You can send it to me. I always like free glass.

 

[KmH]

Don't get rid of your 18-200.

You are to impressed with the convenience of using a single lens, and will miss it.

 

[jwbryson1]

KmH, you are the one who made the suggestion originally. I assume you are being sarcastic now. I'm just asking around before I make a mistake and sell a lens I like shooting with for the most part. I could do without the lens creep.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

JUNK IT!

Non sharp lenses are only good for FB, and the pics should only be posted there alongside the cell phone cam pics

 

[jwbryson1]

FlyingScott, I have spoken to Ken Rockwell on occasion and emailed him about this very issue. No response yet. I just hate to spend $800+ on a lens, keep it for 3 years and then get rid of it. I am the kind of person who keeps things forever as long as they are still working well. I don't like spending $$ unnecessarily.

The 70-300mm is the following: 2161 Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom Nikkor Lens - with 5 Year U.S.A. Warranty

 

[2WheelPhoto]

FlyingScott, I have spoken to Ken Rockwell on occasion and emailed him about this very issue. No response yet. I just hate to spend $800+ on a lens, keep it for 3 years and then get rid of it. I am the kind of person who keeps things forever as long as they are still working well. I don't like spending $$ unnecessarily.

The 70-300mm is the following: 2161 Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom Nikkor Lens - with 5 Year U.S.A. Warranty

So you got that 18-200 free?

 

[jwbryson1]

2WheelPhoto - I don't understand the question. I posted that I paid $800+ for the 18-200mm lens. KmH made a good suggestion to upgrade to the 70-300mm but I was asking around for some more opinions before I sold the 18-200mm to Adorama and took a loss on it.

 

[ulrichsd]

I think what KMH is saying is that a lot of people love the 18-200 versatility. there is a trade-off between image quality and convenience of having one lens instead of 2 or 3. If you are happy with images you are getting out of the 18-200, then you will likely be disappointed that you now have to carry around an extra lens or two for everyday shooting. And if you are only going to carry one lens when you walk out the door, you'll appreciate the 18-70mm range your giving up more than the 200-300mm range you'll be adding with the 70-300mm.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

2WheelPhoto - I don't understand the question. I posted that I paid $800+ for the 18-200mm lens. KmH made a good suggestion to upgrade to the 70-300mm but I was asking around for some more opinions before I sold the 18-200mm to Adorama and took a loss on it.

I apologize, I was being sarcastic but didn't make that clear. I'm one for sharpness over convenience lenses or point and shoot. The 18-200 isn't known for its sharpness, and since you asked in post 1 my vote is to scrap it. But thats just me. I pay a price by carrying a bag with a few lenses.

 

[gsgary]

2WheelPhoto - I don't understand the question. I posted that I paid $800+ for the 18-200mm lens. KmH made a good suggestion to upgrade to the 70-300mm but I was asking around for some more opinions before I sold the 18-200mm to Adorama and took a loss on it.

I wouldn't pay $10 for a lens with so much zoom, get rid and get a good lens

 

[2WheelPhoto]

2WheelPhoto - I don't understand the question. I posted that I paid $800+ for the 18-200mm lens. KmH made a good suggestion to upgrade to the 70-300mm but I was asking around for some more opinions before I sold the 18-200mm to Adorama and took a loss on it.

I wouldn't pay $10 for a lens with so much zoom, get rid and get a good lens

^^^That was my point but stated much more eloquently

 

[gsgary]

2WheelPhoto - I don't understand the question. I posted that I paid $800+ for the 18-200mm lens. KmH made a good suggestion to upgrade to the 70-300mm but I was asking around for some more opinions before I sold the 18-200mm to Adorama and took a loss on it.

I wouldn't pay $10 for a lens with so much zoom, get rid and get a good lens

^^^That was my point but stated much more eloquently

I was going to say that lens is ****ing ****

 

[KmH]

KmH, you are the one who made the suggestion originally. I assume you are being sarcastic now. I'm just asking around before I make a mistake and sell a lens I like shooting with for the most part. I could do without the lens creep.

No, I am not being sarcastic, it was just a suggestion which I supported with information from other more widely read sources, and I can't help that you're apparently not capable of making your own decisions.

You obviously value the convenience over the technical limitations the Nikon 18-200 has, and I sincerely recommend you keep it.