sinderone

I’ve been using the 18-200 as my main lens on my D7100 for a few years and have gotten great quality shots with it. I’ve traveled all over the world with it. It does, however, have one limitation for me; it doesn’t go wide enough. If you’re traveling to cities where structures are very close together you need a wider view. As I’m heading to Europe this summer, I’ve decided to get the Nikon 10-20 4.5. Although a bit slower than the 10-24, it’s much lighter, less than half the price and gets stellar reviews. With that and my 18-200 for the days and my 35mm 1.8 for night I’ll be fully covered. Plus the two smaller lenses weigh just a bit over one pound together. Personally I’d return the 20-24 and get the 10-20. Good luck!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

For snapshot flexibility, the 18-200 is handy. For planned broad sweeping landscape compositions, the 12-24 is better. I have the 10-20 Sigma for my D7000 and really enjoy it's wide perspective.

linelink

I have the Nikon 16-85. It’s a very nice lens. I use a DX Nikon crop sensor camera. The lens I use the most is the 18-300, as you mentioned extra reach. Give the 200 and 300 a try at a camera store. See which one suits you.

Jim Bianco

I just purchased a Nikon 18- 200mm and I love it. It gives me the reach I want and the sharpness that I want . Great walk around lens. JimBianco

Largobob

A one-size-fits all answer is difficult. I'm guessing you use a DX format camera....It makes a difference. I don't know what image characteristics are of interest/concern to you. Wide angle lenses used poorly can produce unpleasing images. I don't believe there is a single or "right" answer to your question.....only options to explore.

As an example, I am shooting with a D810, full-frame (FX) with a fair amount of resolution (36Mp). It doesn't do very well with mediocre glass. I have settled into all high-quality Nikon/Nikkor glass: 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 200-500 f5.6.....and a Macro/Micro 105 for closeups.

This combination seems to cover most anything that comes along for me....24-500 is a nice range with high IQ optics. The keys are lighting, knowing where to stand, and some sense of compositional quality.

Traveller_Jeff

As long as you're selling your lens, you might want to consider a DX Nikkor 10-20mm VR lens.
The attached photo was taken in January at the North end of the Central Park reservoir in NYC. The value of this lens was never clearer to me after I saw this on my screen. (I added a sepia tone to it, because it was such a grey day). It's a unique lens and takes up very little space in your gadget bag.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The images in this article are just awful. They are too wide, terrible extension distortion, exaggerated and false perspectives, really bad keystoning, except for the bathroom shot. If that is the "look" you are going for, great. But this is not going to work for landscape. That first shotof the ground with the horizon at the top edge is a stale cliche at this point.

He is right about two things - ultrawides are best used in close quarters, and if you want to make a room bigger for an MLS interior room shot, great. But even the RE agent is going to frown at a room that looks disproportionately deep - that kind of stuff is hard to explain to a prospective buyer. The second thing is that most people don't know how to properly use an ultra wide lens. Everyone wants a really wide lens, but they do become boring after the novelty wears off. You can see just how much you need to crop from that gas station shot - to make it look reasonable.

The biggest issue with ultrawides is visual confusion about what your target is. Is it the tiny waterfall in the far-off distance or the gravel path that creates a gigantic leading line from bottom corner,to the tiny insignificant waterfall. A good composition will be able to do this without losing the priority of the waterfall to the path. But when you toss an ultrawide into the process, the path becomes bigger than life, demanding your attention, and your viewers will lose focus on what that leading line leads to.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You're welcome!

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Good article. I'm a fan of Ken Rockwell. Ultra wide lenses such as a 11-16mm or 12-24mm, are great for Real Estate and group settings photos. But, I would prefer the 18-200mm for landscapes.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

What lens to use for landscape photography depends on your personal style, on your sense of aesthetics. Landscape shots taken with an ultra-wide lens can be very dramatic if you are able to integrate some interesting foreground features that pull you into the image. This is a skill I still struggle with--but admire when I see it in pictures taken by others. I have a Sigma 10-20 for my D7100 but seldom used it for landscapes. Most of my landscape images are in the mid-range. I also take many landscape images in the telephoto range. This allows me to work out an interesting feature in a landscape without the clutter an ultra-wide image often delivers. So my advice would be twofold: look through your landscape images you like and check at what focal length you shot them. Then go out with your lenses and experiment. Take shots at the entire range of focal lengths and decide what works for you.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Nikon's 12-24 lens is one of its finest professional grade lenses with amazing IQ. I own one and find it extremely useful for my work from Real Estate to Sports. ANY lens such as a 18-200 will be full of compromises, yet useful to some. Purchase whichever one makes you the happiest. Personally, I would never part with my 12-24, but that only applies to me! Best of luck.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Me too!
Fantastic lens, on my 7200 95% of the time, 70-300 G on my 7000.

Duane

Traveller_Jeff

Hi Duane,

Those two, the 18-200 and the 70-300, have also been my two favorites, the former being my day-to-day go-to lens on my D500. I started using the 10-20 Nikkor a few months ago. It's great for very special situations. I'm actually thinking of getting the Tamron 150-600 sometime soon. I'm hoping to grab close-ups of the pileated woodpeckers that inhabit the deeper woods near my home. I have a couple that I shot with the 18-200 when I was still using my D7100; however, having access to 600mm would give me more of what I'm hoping for. Happy hunting, friend.

AndyGarcia

I use a Fuji 18-150mm for almost everything on an X-t1. If I want to travel super light its Fuji 16-50mm (Plastic fantastic) lens on an X-e2. When I get really huge sunsets I use my Fuji 14mm. The 18 - 135mm is used 85% of the time. Works a treat this photo 135mm f6.4 ISO800 1/280.

(Download)

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Excellent picture. Thanks.