olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

If the 70-300 is one of the "basic" models (lower cost, no VR, etc.), an upgrade/wide-to-tele of higher quality might be the way to go, especially if you are looking for that one lens "do all" answer. If the 70-300 is an AF-P w/VR or AF-S & VR, those are pretty decent lenses, and the 18-200 is a good one too. If you go with one, buy from a vendor you can return it to if it doesn't knock your socks off.

Consider used/refurb, places like MPB/KEH/UsedPhotoPro and the big stores offer very nice used gear, with return, and a warranty. This is a good way to go, if you don't want to spend "new".

Ask yourself what you want to accomplish? Why do the kit lenses fall short? If looking for the convenience of just one lens most of the time, a superzoom lens would make sense, simply less to carry, less to fiddle with.

I have the 18-200 VR, the 70-300 AF, and AF-P 70-300 VR and like all of them.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

agillot

a friend gave me a tamron 28/300 , he got the new 18 / 400 tamron . nothing wrong with the 28/300 , should be cheap now on the used market .i fixed the lens creep with a home made rubber band , great walking around lens .

jims203 Loc: Connecticut

It is a great lens and good for 95 percent of the time. Nice all around lens and not too heavy.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

With the two lenses you currently have, you have almost the entire range covered between 18mm and 300mm already. Is that 15mm between those two lens really going to be enough of an added value to you to consider purchasing it?

If you purchase the 18-200 that you are asking about, then ask yourself this. Will the 15mm that you will gain from adding the 18-200mm lens to your kit, will it really provide you with more photo opportunities and be a big enough improvement or addition to what you current lenses don't already provide you?

Ultimately, the decision is up to you to determine your needs. How will use the new lens, do you want to reduce how much gear you carry, do you only want to carry one lens with you, is the 200mm long end of that lens adequate for what you shoot, how often do you shoot at 300mm?

Those are some of the things only you know, and that will help you determine what you lens will be most beneficial to you. You will get some good answers and advice on UHH as to how certain gear performs in the real world based on actual usage, but again, it really is a question only you can answer based on your needs and wants.

Good luck on making your decision.

Polock

I kind of like my 18-140 with a 70-300, i think the overlap is a good thing. saves a lot of lens changes

smlek Loc: Chicago, IL

The 200mm and 300mm lenses mentioned here are all F/5.6 and limited to bright sunlight scenes only if handheld, especially the 300mm, your shutter speed needs to be quite high to freeze the handshake.
It depends what you shoot. If you want to shoot sports or moving kids, these will be useless, you will need a F/2.8 lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

According to the magnified test shot samples here:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Movo-MT-P56-2-Piece-AF-Chrome-Macro-Extension-Tube-Set-for-Pentax-K-DSLR-Camera/382515648138?hash=item590fb5968a:g:jusAAOSwU5RbQ9K4

... Except at 18mm, at focal lengths they share the Nikkor AF-S 18-140mm appears sharper and to have less chromatic aberration than the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm "II" in the mid-frame and corners. They aren't very different in the center of the image area. At 18mm they're very similar, but the 18-200mm might have a very slight edge in sharpness and CA in the corners.

Note: I only compared them at "wide open" apertures where most lenses are not at their best. You should also compare them at smaller apertures, to help you decide. There may be other lenses you may wish to consider and can compare at that website. Use the pull-down menus to change lens selection, focal length and aperture.

See https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx for info about the standardized lens test target used to make all the above comparisons.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

I sort of did what Longshadow did but I got a 18-300. I like the extra reach. this one lens will definitely be in your other 2 lenses reach of 18-55/70-300. otherwise I know Nikon has something like 28-80 ? that would fill in the missing gap 55-70.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

My Favorite DX lens was the 16-80. Super sharp.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

50-70 is minimal. I wouldn't worry about coverage if I had both an 18-55 and a 70-300.
It's easy to crop a 55 mm image.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

I agree :-) but also giving my 2 cents on OP's original question- "thinking of getting a lens in between those two 18-200".

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

gjgallager Loc: North Central CT & Space Coast Florida

I agree with CO. On a recent trip to Italy I took my D5600 (it's just easier to carry around than my D750). I took my Tamron 16-300mm, and the Nikon 10-20mm, both DX lenses. About 90% of the time I used the 10-20mm lens. The wide angle really helped getting indoor and outdoor photos of the many glorious Duomo's (Cathedrals), as well as markets, squares and narrow alleyways. Oh, and what a shame about Notre Dame. Greg.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I had the 18-140 on a D5300 and sold it - bad decision. It was a useful lens and I got good results. I bought a 35mm f1.8 DX lens. It is a very good lens, but I don't use it often.