Which lens? I have a D3200 Nikon & enjoy photographing close-ups of flowers etc to landscapes & sunsets as well as portraits for family. I am new to photography & have the 2 kit lenses...

Josiedev Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I have a D3200 Nikon & enjoy photographing close-ups of flowers etc to landscapes & sunsets as well as portraits for family. I am new to photography & have the 2 kit lenses that came with my camera - the 18-55 & the 55-200. I am looking to buy either the Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VRII or the 18-300 Nikon DX f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR. I live in AZ so photographing wildlife is fun as well. Pros/cons to either. Thanks for the input

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Josiedev wrote:

I have a D3200 Nikon & enjoy photographing close-ups of flowers etc to landscapes & sunsets as well as portraits for family. I am new to photography & have the 2 kit lenses that came with my camera - the 18-55 & the 55-200. I am looking to buy either the Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VRII or the 18-300 Nikon DX f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR. I live in AZ so photographing wildlife is fun as well. Pros/cons to either. Thanks for the input

Some comparisons.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/DX-super-zooms/

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/27/nikon-18-200mm-and-18-300mm-dx-lenses-size-comparison.aspx/

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BDVNGXKRI7C5

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Typically, the greater the zoom length (min to max), the lower the overall quality of pictures the lens produces. The lenses you've proposed overlap completely with the focal lengths of the lenses you currently have. If looking for the 300mm 'length', look maybe at the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR. Look also at http://www.kenrockwell.com/ for some colorful and candid reviews and suggestions on Nikon lenses.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Other than not having to change lenses the two you mention will not be much different than what you have. As you take pictures with the lenses you have take note of what they wont do that you would like. You may want faster lenses that will limit the depth of field to blur back grounds or take pictures in low light. You may want a macro so you can take bug pictures. You may want a wide angle. You may want a prime 50 or 35 with their fast speeds for indoor work. Or perhaps a super long tele. Only you can decide what kind of photography you want to do. You may even want a Lens Baby and get wild with your shots. - Dave

amehta Loc: Boston

Josiedev wrote:

I have a D3200 Nikon & enjoy photographing close-ups of flowers etc to landscapes & sunsets as well as portraits for family. I am new to photography & have the 2 kit lenses that came with my camera - the 18-55 & the 55-200. I am looking to buy either the Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VRII or the 18-300 Nikon DX f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR. I live in AZ so photographing wildlife is fun as well. Pros/cons to either. Thanks for the input

How do you think either of those lenses would be better than what you have now?

The image quality of all four lenses is pretty comparable, so I wouldn't suggest either new lens because of that.

My suggestion is to shoot with what you have and learn about photography, both technical stuff and the artistic side. Then, as your skills improve to the point where the equipment is limiting you, get something new. That may be an upgrade of your camera, and upgrade of your lenses, or different kind of lens (macro or wide angle, for example).

Josiedev Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Thank you for the reply. The only reason to buy either of the two mentioned lenses was because I find myself changing lenses all the time & thought it would be more convenient to just have 1 lens that stays on the camera.

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

Josiedev wrote:

Thank you for the reply. The only reason to buy either of the two mentioned lenses was because I find myself changing lenses all the time & thought it would be more convenient to just have 1 lens that stays on the camera.

For the same reason you just mentioned, I got the 18-200 VR II and I think it's a great lens. It's my most used "walk-about" lens I own.

amehta Loc: Boston

Josiedev wrote:

Thank you for the reply. The only reason to buy either of the two mentioned lenses was because I find myself changing lenses all the time & thought it would be more convenient to just have 1 lens that stays on the camera.

Yes, it is definitely more convenient to have one lens.

Sometimes, though, there is a benefit to taking the picture which your equipment allows, instead of switching, challenging ourselves to see the world a little differently. If you're out shooting for a couple of hours, maybe limit your lens switch to one every half hour. If you're switching a lot, to a certain extent you are reacting to what you see.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Josiedev wrote:

Thank you for the reply. The only reason to buy either of the two mentioned lenses was because I find myself changing lenses all the time & thought it would be more convenient to just have 1 lens that stays on the camera.

I don't like changing lenses when I'm out shooting. Aside from the dirt issue, dropping a lens would ruin my day. I often go out with some specif shooting in mind and attach the appropriate lens. I sometimes carry two cameras, with a tele on one and a w/a on the other.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Josie you mite want to consider the Nikon 85mm G macro lens.