I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 - 300 mm lens but I want a more all-around lens so I don't have to change lenses so often. I've been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 18 - 200 mm F/3.5 lens as the best candidate. I understand zoom lenses with a greater (18 - 300 mm) range will suffer from image quality at the longer focal length so I'm staying away from that choice.
My questions are:
1. Will an 18 - 200 mm lens suffer image quality just as much as the 18 - 300? Should I go with an even shorter range of focal lengths?
2. Is there an equivalent lens that can do better than F/3.5?
3. Should I stick with Nikon at a higher price or are the Sigma or Tamron lenses just as good?
Thanks folks.
Fourlocks
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
fourlocks wrote:
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 - 300 mm lens but I want a more all-around lens so I don't have to change lenses so often. I've been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 18 - 200 mm F/3.5 lens as the best candidate. I understand zoom lenses with a greater (18 - 300 mm) range will suffer from image quality at the longer focal length so I'm staying away from that choice.
My questions are:
1. Will an 18 - 200 mm lens suffer image quality just as much as the 18 - 300? Should I go with an even shorter range of focal lengths?
2. Is there an equivalent lens that can do better than F/3.5?
3. Should I stick with Nikon at a higher price or are the Sigma or Tamron lenses just as good?
Thanks folks.
Fourlocks
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 -... (
show quote)
1. Not at all -the 18-200 VR Nikkor is actually quite good.
2. No. But you can get an outstanding Sigma 50-100 F1.8 for DX.
3. The Nikkor 18-200 is the best of that bunch. The Sigma 18-35 F1.8 is in the same class as the 50-100 - very high quality and not cheap. These two fast lenses have no Nikkor or Tamron counterpart.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
fourlocks wrote:
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 - 300 mm lens but I want a more all-around lens so I don't have to change lenses so often. I've been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 18 - 200 mm F/3.5 lens as the best candidate. I understand zoom lenses with a greater (18 - 300 mm) range will suffer from image quality at the longer focal length so I'm staying away from that choice.
My questions are:
1. Will an 18 - 200 mm lens suffer image quality just as much as the 18 - 300? Should I go with an even shorter range of focal lengths?
2. Is there an equivalent lens that can do better than F/3.5?
3. Should I stick with Nikon at a higher price or are the Sigma or Tamron lenses just as good?
Thanks folks.
Fourlocks
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 -... (
show quote)
I am now on my second version of the 18-200 and it is JUST RIGHT. Many feel it is in the top 10 of Nikon zoom lenses for IQ. It is my go to lens for vacations and family shots. Small, can carry it around all day and it is a 27-300 on my D500. I do not use anything but Nikon, for a reason.
The Nikon 18-200 will make you happy.
I have a D7100 and an 18-200 Nikkor. It is an excellent lens for non-specialized photography. Any distortions that occur at either extreme end of the zoom range are very difficult to detect in the images. The stabilization is very effective, and the included tulip hood works well. I bought a refurbished one at Adorama when I bought the D7100 new and have had no problems at all with it. Having said that, two things to consider: budget for new lens; purpose the lens will be used for. As has been said many times before, put the money in the glass!
Two of my favorite lenses for my Nikons (D7100 and older D7000) are the 16-85mm (trade in that 18-55) and the 18-200. If I had to choose one lens, however, it would be the 18-200. Good luck.
ABJanes
Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia
I am very happy with my Nikon 18-140MM f3.5-5.6......sharp at 18MM, 140MM and everything in between. I believe it has better ratings than the 18-200 or the 18-300.
fourlocks wrote:
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 - 300 mm lens but I want a more all-around lens so I don't have to change lenses so often. I've been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 18 - 200 mm F/3.5 lens as the best candidate. I understand zoom lenses with a greater (18 - 300 mm) range will suffer from image quality at the longer focal length so I'm staying away from that choice.
My questions are:
1. Will an 18 - 200 mm lens suffer image quality just as much as the 18 - 300? Should I go with an even shorter range of focal lengths?
2. Is there an equivalent lens that can do better than F/3.5?
3. Should I stick with Nikon at a higher price or are the Sigma or Tamron lenses just as good?
Thanks folks.
Fourlocks
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 -... (
show quote)
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
fourlocks wrote:
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 - 300 mm lens but I want a more all-around lens so I don't have to change lenses so often. I've been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 18 - 200 mm F/3.5 lens as the best candidate. I understand zoom lenses with a greater (18 - 300 mm) range will suffer from image quality at the longer focal length so I'm staying away from that choice.
My questions are:
1. Will an 18 - 200 mm lens suffer image quality just as much as the 18 - 300? Should I go with an even shorter range of focal lengths?
2. Is there an equivalent lens that can do better than F/3.5?
3. Should I stick with Nikon at a higher price or are the Sigma or Tamron lenses just as good?
Thanks folks.
Fourlocks
I have a Nikon D5500 with an 18 - 55 mm and a 55 -... (
show quote)
I use the Canon flavor of the 18-200 as my walk around. It does a fine job. certainly worth the money. I understand that the Tamron 16-300 is an excellent choice.
Elsiss
Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.
I have the Nikon 18-200 vr2. Have used it for about 5 years and am very pleased with it. Outstanding lens. You will be satisfied with it.
I stay away from superzoom lenses. The engineers have to compromise too much in order to achieve the long zoom range. I've used the Nikon 18-200mm. It has a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle settings and a lot of pincushion distortion at the long end. The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens has much less distortion and its bokeh is much better. You would still need to use your 18-55mm for wide angle. I have the 70-300mm. I've been impressed with it.
Several years ago I began to tire of constantly changing lens on my D80, noticed a good friend seemed to never need to change. He was using a 18-200 so I found a used one. I am now shooting with a D7100, the 18-200 is still my "go-to" lens and is on the camera about 90% of the time.
You will not be sorry..............
JohnD3 wrote:
Several years ago I began to tire of constantly changing lens on my D80, noticed a good friend seemed to never need to change. He was using a 18-200 so I found a used one. I am now shooting with a D7100, the 18-200 is still my "go-to" lens and is on the camera about 90% of the time.
You will not be sorry..............
Used can save you a lot of money.
I agree with you about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. There are much better, more expensive lenses but
I've used this lens for several years on a D300s at baseball games and football practice from the side lines and always made some good shots.
CO wrote:
I stay away from superzoom lenses. The engineers have to compromise too much in order to achieve the long zoom range. I've used the Nikon 18-200mm. It has a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle settings and a lot of pincushion distortion at the long end. The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens has much less distortion and its bokeh is much better. You would still need to use your 18-55mm for wide angle. I have the 70-300mm. I've been impressed with it.
We will be going on an Alaska cruise at the end of May. I was looking at the Tamron 16-300 as there is a rebate going on right now, until March 5. A local camera store showed me the Tamron 70-300 f4.0-5.6, saying that would be better lens. It is normally priced about $50 less than the Nikon 70-300, which is an f4.5-5.6. However, another local store is offering. $30 rebate on the Nikon, bringing the difference in price to only $20. For $20 (even at the regular pricing) my gut feeling is to go with the Nikon. Only other major difference is that the Tamron takes a 62mm filter while the Nikon takes a 67mm.
Sorry if I "hijacked" the original poster's question but your comment on the 70-300 got me going.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.