Traveller_Jeff

Since upgrading from my long-ago bought D80, I have acquired a D500, D850, and D5. I also have a nice assortment of Dx and Fx lenses. However, I was always extremely satisfied with the flexibility of my first lens, the Dx 18-200. I would love to have a lens equal to that first one, that is, around 18-200mm, but in an Fx format. Is there one available from Nikon? If not, I may have to resort to other lens manufacturers. Thank you.
Traveller_Jeff

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

18 x 1.5 = 27
200 x 1.5 = 300

A 28-300mm FX would be pretty darned close!

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f%252f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729950-GREY/Nikon_2191_AF_S_NIKKOR_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6G.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=ba_f1_lar&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAiAu5agBhBzEiwAdiR5tN0PbG6F2xU600TU_xuG-4ZSwQ43npcrBT5BXsj5JVfUb5xRItHHrxoCxKUQAvD_BwE

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You are already using that Dx lens on both Dx (D80, D500) and Fx [(D850, D5) in crop mode]. So is what you are asking for is a 18-200mm Fx lens that covers a 24x36mm Fx sensor? That is quite a range for a FF lens. I'm not sure what is available in a zoom, but I am sure you can get Nikon primes with focal lengths close to those extremes.

User ID

EQUIVALENT

Copy and paste that word into google or any dictionary site. Live and learn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The OPs simple query was solidly fully answered in the very first reply. Every reply following that is a waste of time ... including this post of mine and the post that Ive replied to. But Im betting on at least eight pages more, in accordance with UHH Sacred Tradition.

There will be "experts" warning that a fully equivalent zoom will be ungodly big and heavy. And so what ? Bigger stuff weighs more. Youre spozed to learn that in third grade, in gym class.

Eight pages to go, Hogsters, get crackin ! The majoriy of that will be overly lengthy discussions of the following simple info: Nikon offers three midrange choices, 24-85, 24-120, and 28-300. The weight and dimensions are published. Que sera sera.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Where did the OP use the word "Equivalent"? A 200mm lens is always 200mm. The image circle diameter is what changes with different styles of lenses for different formats, APS-C, 35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5", etc. I have a 210mm View Camera lens that throws a huge image circle compared to my 70-210mm 35mm-format lens.

Vault Loc: Gig Harbor, WA and Yuma, AZ

Ditto!

Grahame Loc: Fiji

In the title

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

WOW, talk about an upgrade, went from a D80 to a D5, WOW. Talk about your upgrades.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

At the expense of image quality. 😢

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

This would be equivalent if you put your 28-300mm FX lens on an FX body. If you put that FX lens on a DX body the image gets cropped. So the crop factor actually works against you, not for you.

The answer is that you still need a 18-200mm FX lens on a DX body. A 18-200mm DX lens and 18-200 FX lens are optically the same--the FX just gives you a wider field of view because the FX body as a wider sensor. If you put either on a DX body you get approximately the same image--in both cases the crop factor kicks in and it will give you a de facto 27-300mm full-frame equivalent range.

The answer given is correct if you want to duplicate the set-up 18-200mm DX on a DX body in a full-frame format. The equivalent then would be a 28-300 FX lens on an FX body.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

There is no such thing as an 18-200 FX lens. The answer he’s looking for is the 28-300. I’m guessing he will still have the 18-200 to shoot on his DX bodies, but he could use the 28-300 and get 42-450 equivalent.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's a reason why DX camera bodies and lenses are cheaper, smaller and physically lighter. Give the FX 24-300mm a try for any of these three attributes. Then, consider a better and more appropriate 24-120mm f/4.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've held off responding to your question, since Alan directly answered it in his reply right after your original post. Paul also provided you with a response and some good context just above.

I shoot with some, but not all of the same cameras that you have. After using only DX for many years (D200, D300), I bought a D810 because it was required for a workshop I took, and now also use a D850 and, after discovering that 46MP is complete overkill for lots of things, now also have a couple of D500s. I also have a 18-200mm Nikkor DX zoom, but have never really liked it very much. It is out of service right now with a bad ribbon cable and am looking for a replacement for it. By the way, these lenses have a reputation for spontaneous VR failure. That is unrepairable, as parts are no longer available from Nikon for this lens.

It turns out that if you are trying to find a replacement for your 18-200mm, there is an option. Tamron makes a zoom with that exact zoom range. I believe that the aperture is the same as or very similar to the Nikkor lens, but can't say for sure. The lens didn't seems very serviceable to me (focus ring all the way at the front of the lens, construction all plastic, but the retail price is only $250.

If you want a lens for your FX cameras with the same framing range as the 18-200, Alan correctly referred you to the 28-300 zoom. Despite not being a fan of wide-range zooms, I did look at that lens once. Yes, it has a wide framing range. No, it is not very impressive.

Paul's idea to consider the Nikkor 24-120mm zoom is a really good one. That lens is f/4 over its entire zoom range, has really good VR, and optically performs very well. It's just short of $1100 new, but I bought a used one at my local camera store for $425 a couple of years ago and a refurbished one from NikonUSA last spring for $495 (there was a little bit of adventure associated with that one, but everything eventually worked out).

When I travel, I take two cameras, a D850 and D500. Each one of them has one of these lenses. Last summer, I took a major trip to a convention with field trips and meetings and indoor activities. Those two cameras & lenses were all that I took. Either one alone would have been just fine. I did appreciate the extra wide angle capability of the full frame camera.

You don't give us much clue about how you use these various cameras, so our responses have to be in pretty general terms. My best guess is that you are going to keep both system and want to have the ability to select lenses with equivalent fields of view on pairs of cameras. That's sort of what I'm doing, with the exception of making the 24-120mm lenses my "base" lenses for both formats. If I need wider than that lens provides on a D500, I either make a panorama or grab the D850 instead.

BebuLamar

A worth while upgrade. Why waste money on incremental upgrade?

BebuLamar

Is there a 24-300mm lens? I didn't know that.