Replacing the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. What to get?

net1994

I have the Nikon 18-200VR. I LOVE THIS LENS. I use it 96% of the time for mostly walk around and some close up 'macro' shots, I have used lenses which are a lot sharper for the same or less price. I am thinking of finding a replacement for this lens. (I will be getting the D300 next week.)

The most important thing I am looking for is to retain the 18-200mm range or widen it a bit. I was thinking of maybe going with the Sigma 17-70 2.8 lens & Nikon 70-300 VR lens. I will sacrifice the single lens, 'never take it off' feature I love, but I hope a little bit sharper pics. I do not have the $$ for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens and its too damn big, frankly.


Thoughts?

ziggy53

net1994 wrote:

I have the Nikon 18-200VR. I LOVE THIS LENS. I use it 96% of the time for mostly walk around and some close up 'macro' shots, I have used lenses which are a lot sharper for the same or less price. I am thinking of finding a replacement for this lens. (I will be getting the D300 next week.)

The most important thing I am looking for is to retain the 18-200mm range or widen it a bit. I was thinking of maybe going with the Sigma 17-70 2.8 lens & Nikon 70-300 VR lens. I will sacrifice the single lens, 'never take it off' feature I love, but I hope a little bit sharper pics. I do not have the $$ for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens and its too damn big, frankly.


Thoughts?

The Sigma 17-70mm, f2.8-4.5 DC is reported to be pretty good, but it is a little slow on the long end. I prefer a constant aperture and I would recommend either the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) or the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro.

For the longer tele I recommend the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8 ED AF-D.

You can probably do without the minor gap of 50-80mm, but you will come to appreciate the quality of these constant aperture lenses and especially how well autofocus should work on the D300 with these lenses.

jonh68

If you are looking for sharper images, I wouldn't replace the 18-200 with the 70-300.

Do you have to sell your lens? Since you like it as a walkabout lens, I would complement it with the 80-200 2.8 for more serious photography. I know they both cover the same ground, but they have different purposes and strengths.

Also, from what I have read about the D300, it compensates for lens errors and improves sharpness, but I can't speak about that first hand.

Mitchell

What exactly are your trying to achieve? If you like the 18-200mm, just stick with it on your new D300. It is a decent walkaround lens which is reasonably sharp below 150mm. The biggest deficiency is that it is slow.

There really is no single lens which will provide you with increased IQ and speed at that zoom range.

The 70-300mm would be a mistake. Slow lens which is not too sharp on either end.

If you really want improved IQ and speed, you will need to step up to a pro quality zoom. I use a Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 for most of my shooting. This is a legendary lens with great sharpness and speed. It has just been replaced by the new Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8 lens, so there are many used older models available at pretty good prices.

It may be big and heavy, but you can't beat the IQ and speed of this professional lens.

net1994

Mitchell wrote:

What exactly are your trying to achieve?

I want to get something sharper than my 18-200mm and keep the same range-without a substantial increase in weight, or hit to the wallet.

A few have suggested upgrading to 12-24 f2.8 & 24-70 f2.8 & 70-200VR to try and duplicate the range of my 18-200VR. For this, I don't have the nearly $4500 to get all of these lenses. The 24-70 is too big/heavy to be used as a walk around lens. This is true for the 70-200 VR I have rented. Its superb optically, best I've ever used but after a half hour it can't really be used as a walk around lens due to its weight. And thats pretty much what what I do is virtually all walk around photography.

I read the PopPhoto review of the tamron 28-300 w/ VC. It restricts me on the wide angle, and doesn't seem any better optically.

I may just use the $$ I was on lenses and get a D300, as it doesn't seem I can find what I need. Is it possible to spend $2k or less on two lenses that replace this range and boost sharpness without being too heavy/bulky? Am I looking for something that doesn't exist in my twisted world?

jonh68

The 80-200 2.8 AF is $500 used and it's not as heavy as the AFS or 70-200 VR.

You are not going to get anything better than the 18-200 in regards to flexibility and sharpness in regards to a walkaround lens. For more sharpness or specific use, you are going to get bulkier or the lens will not be as versatile. The choice is yours and what you can afford.

I always suggest this when people are dissatisfied with their lens. Try the demo of DXO. It accounts for specific flaws in camera and lenses and can make subtle corrections like distortion, noise, etc because it accounts for focal length of the specific lens.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/free_demo

BPerron

You keep talking about walk around lenses...isn't carry two lenses as opposed to one lens, way more combersome? Either way you split it, you are going to have to spend a huge chunk of change to get a professional lens with the sharpness you are looking for. And like someone else said, when you get a better lens, the more it weighs, just how it goes...kind of like having a small tacoma truck and wanting to go to a bigger truck and not wanting to pay more for gas...just kind of a fact of life to get better results you have to deal with the weight. Again, I am not sure how two lenses and switch between them will be better then a single lens. Pus the lenses in question are not that heavy...we are not talking about a 600mm+ lens here....

I am not sure what camera you are shooting on now, but a d300 will yeild better results then the camera you are using now (d300 is an amazing camera). So maybe you sould wait and get the camera, shoot around with the 18-200 and decide if you still want to give up the single lens aspect.

net1994

BPerron wrote:

You keep talking about walk around lenses...isn't carry two lenses as opposed to one lens, way more combersome? Either way you split it, you are going to have to spend a huge chunk of change to get a professional lens with the sharpness you are looking for. And like someone else said, when you get a better lens, the more it weighs, just how it goes...kind of like having a small tacoma truck and wanting to go to a bigger truck and not wanting to pay more for gas...just kind of a fact of life to get better results you have to deal with the weight. Again, I am not sure how two lenses and switch between them will be better then a single lens. Pus the lenses in question are not that heavy...we are not talking about a 600mm+ lens here....

I am not sure what camera you are shooting on now, but a d300 will yeild better results then the camera you are using now (d300 is an amazing camera). So maybe you sould wait and get the camera, shoot around with the 18-200 and decide if you still want to give up the single lens aspect.

I have the D50, 18-200VR and the 50mm 1.8 Prime. I'm starting to think, and taking everyone's good points...that what I"m looking for doesn't exist. Even if money were no object, to cover the range and upgrade optically I would need to get two lenses. Two medium-'big' lenses.

How about getting a lens that is in the 100-400mm or so; 2.8; VR would e nice...but even going as far back as the 80's era lens w/ AF; sharpness on par with the 70-200mm VR lens (dare to dream!). Anything like this ring a bell?

Any suggestions?

jonh68

Google can be a great research tool.

Harryb

Here's a good site with links to many Nikon lens reviews. Additional useful lens reviews can be found here.

photographilia

net1994 wrote:

I have the D50, 18-200VR and the 50mm 1.8 Prime. I'm starting to think, and taking everyone's good points...that what I"m looking for doesn't exist. Even if money were no object, to cover the range and upgrade optically I would need to get two lenses. Two medium-'big' lenses...

Bingo. What you're looking for doesn't exist. Note that the Nikon 18-200VR is in a class by itself. Nobody offers a zoom with such a wide range and decent image quality. Seems like your expectations have been set by a lens that broke a lot of boundaries.

To improve on the image quality, you probably need to consider constant aperture lenses. Several have been suggested here. You will likely find them unbearably heavy even if you can afford them, since you are using your walkaround as a reference point.

How about getting a lens that is in the 100-400mm or so; 2.8; VR would e nice...but even going as far back as the 80's era lens w/ AF; sharpness on par with the 70-200mm VR lens (dare to dream!). Anything like this ring a bell?

Again, what you're looking for doesn't exist. Once you start thinking constant aperture (f/2.8) lenses, they get a lot bigger and heavier, plus the zoom range decreases. At around 3x, the 70-200VR has the widest zoom range of any constant aperture zoom. In the range you mention, Nikon makes a 200-400VR at f/2.8 (2x), but it runs in the $5k range and weighs over 7 pounds. Get the picture? You're going to sacrifice dollars, weight and lens changes to get the 11x range covered with higher quality glass.

One lens I can suggest that may fit the bill above as closely as possible: Nikon makes an 80-400VR lens that is....well, slow (both in speed and in AF), but image quality is excellent.

Another suggestion I would have is to keep your 18-200VR, because you'll likely be unhappy without it. But add other lenses (dare I say primes?) to allow you to swap to them when the need arises. Try an 85mm f/1.8 if you like taking portraits. Try a 105mm micro if you like closeups of flowers. Try a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you like night pictures. You get the picture