Travel lens on d5100

[bw2]

I'm traveling overseas in a week, and trying to choose a good travel lens for my d5100.
I am leaning toward 18-200mm nikon at this stage because:
(1) I want to travel light.
(2) I don't want to have to change lenses while walking around.
(3) I will be in city areas and probably use the wide end most of the time. However, I am also checking out some local festivals and might want to do zoom in on local people or shrine details.
(4) I am also taking 35mm f1.8 for low-light situations.
(5) Some of the places I plan to visit do not allow the use of tripod, and this lens's VR capability will be very handy.
(6) I realize I cannot get top picture quality with this type of super zooms, but I am willing to pay a little extra for a reasonably descent picture quality.

I also considered the 16-85mm, but it might be a little short on the long end. With the rumour of its f/4 update, I feel I might regret if I get this one now.
I realise there is also a rumour of 18-300mm, but it will be much heavier and probably a lot more expensive.

With these factors in mind, do you think 18-200mm is a good choice? Do you guys have any other suggestions?

 

[orb9220]

Well with your criteria of no lens swapping or changing. The 18-200vr is a great travel lens tho will not be ideal for some lower light situations. But for the most part may do you fine. Another to consider and a lot less in cost is the 18-105vr which is also a great performer for it's price range. As the 18-200vr is pretty spendy and premium price for having an all-in-one zoom.
.

 

[sleist]

What lenses do you have now besides the 35mm f/1.8G DX?

 

[TheKenTurner]

What about the Sigma 17-70? I've been looking into it lately, and it looks nice!

-ken Turner

 

[bw2]

To orb9220: 18-105mm might be a good option. Thanks for the suggestion! I have always found the 18-55mm range of the kit lens a tad too short, but 18-105 should cover most walk-around snaps. How is its picture quality and VR effectiveness? Is it comparable to that of 18-200mm? I tried 18-200mm and 16-85mm at my local store, and found 18-200mm to be descent enough but a little plain in colour rendition.

To sleist: I have 18-55mm / 55-300mm kit lenses, Tamron 90mm macro, 35mm f/1.8. I will be leaving the macro and 18-55mm lenses at home. I will be taking the 55-300mm for a soccer match I will be watching. I know it performs terribly in low light, but I don't normally shoot sports and cannot justify upgrading it. I might get Tamron 70-300mm if it is cheap enough in Hong Kong (in transit) / Japan (my destination).

To TheKen Turner: Thanks for the suggestion. I did not think of that option (partly because my local camera shop has a very limited range for Sigma lenses...). Its f stop makes it very appealing. Mmm.... I might look into this lens further. Do you know about its picture quality and autofocus speed?

 

[orb9220]

To orb9220: 18-105mm might be a good option. Thanks for the suggestion! I have always found the 18-55mm range of the kit lens a tad too short, but 18-105 should cover most walk-around snaps. How is its picture quality and VR effectiveness? Is it comparable to that of 18-200mm? I tried 18-200mm and 16-85mm at my local store, and found 18-200mm to be descent enough but a little plain in colour rendition.

Yes the 18-105vr performs on par with the 18-200vr. As mostly dealing with slower variable f-stop lenses. And my friend finds it sharp enough. And what I've seen comparable to others.

Same quality being also consumer or kit lens is my 55-200vr which is my main walkabout lens. And covers about 85% of my needs. But also have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 when needing wider.

As to Color or sharpness is more about shooting raw and boosting in post. As camera defaults are conserative and either need to tweak settings in camera for jpegs or do it in post with raw.
.

 

[Alan92RTTT]

I have the D5000 and started with the 18-55 and the 55-200. I picked up the 70-300mm for more distance. IMO the 55mm point was just too short and required a lot of lens switching. Before a trip to Disney at Christmas I wanted a more versatile lens. The while I wanted the 18-200 it was out of my budget. I picked up the 18-105 and have been very happy with it. (one of these days I need to post those pics. )

 

[StandingBear1983]

Consider the fact that the 18-200 costs as much as the 28-300 which is an FX lens. if you want to keep it low cost, go with the 18-105, if you plan ahead to go FX, i would think about getting the 28-300.

 

[Alan92RTTT]

Were are you seeing a 28-300 for close to 800?

IMO the 28mm on a DX format body would be limiting for a general use travel lens.

 

[Solarflare]

There is no 18-300 DX lens. There is a 18-300 FX lens, but that one wont give you more telezoom compared to the 18-200 DX lens, just more room at the wide end.