Should I sell my other lens to get Nikon 18-200mm??

[giantcanopy]

I will be renting one for my trip to washington next week. I will also bring along my Tamron. With the number of museums (low light!) in DC, I should be able to have a good feel of how the 2 lens will perform side by side.

18-200 and 70-200 are made for different situations. The 18-200mm is a darn good all rounder solution by Nikon. The later is an excellent ( and not to mention heavy ) performer. I love the lightweightedness and the convenience of the 18-200.

But renting the lens for shooting for a week overseas is a good idea to do some self evaluation.

Ryan

 

[hobbes187]

The D300 kit lens package come with 18-200.

May i know where u got this info? Maybe there will soon be an influx of 2nd hand 18-200mm? ;p

 

[dankar]

It is being offered with the D300 in other countries as a kit set, I am assuming that it would be too in Singapore. Also Nikon Capture NX would be offered with D3 and D300. Will let you know in 5 days time...

 

[hobbes187]

It is being offered with the D300 in other countries as a kit set, I am assuming that it would be too in Singapore. Also Nikon Capture NX would be offered with D3 and D300. Will let you know in 5 days time...

Any news ;p

 

[bambangw]

if you need F2.8, keep the tammy.
if you need < F2.8 and can live with 50mm, keep the 50mm, else try 35mm.
then once budget permit, trade 18-135 with 18-200.
on close focus distance at 200mm, 18-200 is almost down to 135 anyway..

 

[looka]

I have the 18-200VR as my Nikon first Lens after I bought D200 and then the Tamron 17-50 just last month. At 17-50 18-200VR can not match Tamron. I got good copy Tamron, it is sharp from corner to corner. 18-200VR is an all rounder, can expect good result but not great result compare to a f/2.8 Lens. For your case buy the 18-200VR and keep the 50/1.8 (right?) for low light. I initially use 18-200VR and 50/1.8 as my travel set, now the 50/1.8 is replaced by Tamron 17-50. I use zoom for event and family, fix 10.5 and 50 for selective shooting. I just got the D300 so my dream Lens 200/2VR is put on hold.

 

[peaceofangkor]

The 18-200 VR is a useful lens; sharp enough and close focusing. The Wide angle distortion is a major probem for me and in practice VR on a slow lens is a waste of money .

I considerd a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 but to save cash bought the 18-200 instead. I soon saw the error of my ways and now have the Nikon 17-55 2.8. The 18-200 is hardly used now; but it is handy If I want to take snapshots and dont want to carry my 70-200 around. I'd definatley keep the Tamron 18-50 as it is a good fast lightweight lens.

 

[calebk]

YEAH thumbs up for this if low on cash go for the without vr version!much much cheaper

The non-VR version is a vastly different lens, in terms of build quality and optical performance.

For me the VR feature nails it. Aperture 2.8 good but VR with low light situations, you can get away with 1/5 sec hand held at focus length 50 mm. Try that with your 17-50 mm F2.8, you would need support or a tripod. Sell the 18-135 mm and 50 mm.

The D300 kit lens package come with 18-200. Compare the other kit lens mounting with the one on the 18-200, I am sure you would find out that it is less of a 'kit lens'.

An f/2.8 aperture can do one thing that VR will never achieve: stopping motion. Practically speaking, 1/5s at 50mm will not stop motion of any sort; even if I get a stable shot, the subject (unless absolutely still) will be blurred.

Btw, I have handheld 1/5s 50mm at f/2.2 before. It is possible but difficult. The photo will be sharp, not tack sharp, but usable. Given no limit to choice, I'd have a VR, f/2.8 lens any day.

 

[Yapster]

Seems like hobbes187 already decided to sell his Tamron 17-50mm man.

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=329787

Good luck to your sales~

 

[marcdn]

Hi, thus far I've resisted getting the 18-200 despite the fact that I know its a good lens. Somehow I rather go around with the inconvenience of swapping lenses. Using a d80, I didn't get the kit lens either but i got a 50 1.8 prime, which forced me to think about composition a lot more. Right now, I have a tamron 17-50 f2.8, a 35f2 as well as the 50 prime and the
55-200 vr. To me its a pretty decent solution, as i use the tammy for events and the 35 as a walkaround lens with the 55-200 thrown in the bag. But the thing is, I realise i don't shoot telephoto so much, more landscape and portraiture, so for me I couldn't justify the cost of the 18-200, though I've probably spent more than that by now... Bottomline is, figure out what you shoot most and then invest accordingly in that focal length. There is no one lens to rule them all.. well maybe, but you'll need a forklift to follow ya around.

 

[giantcanopy]

I soon saw the error of my ways and now have the Nikon 17-55 2.8. The 18-200 is hardly used now; but it is handy If I want to take snapshots and dont want to carry my 70-200 around. I'd definatley keep the Tamron 18-50 as it is a good fast lightweight lens.

I think it boils down to individual shooting needs. For me i chose the 18-200mm over the 17-55 not so much because of monetary issues but rather because i want to have more flexibility and not miss something that is abit further in reach when i am overseas roaming on the streets. It is a personal choice, and one has to understand the limits of each choice he/she makes and make the best out of it.

Cheers
Ryan

 

[hobbes187]

Seems like hobbes187 already decided to sell his Tamron 17-50mm man.

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=329787

Good luck to your sales~

I'm in Washington now and I love the 18-200mm I rented. It allowed me to shoot well even in low light (on static subjects). A lot of shots I dont think I will be confident of getting with my other lenses turn out good.

Thats why i put up both the 18-135mm and 17-50mm for sale. I plan to get the 18-200mm for general shooting (like walk about, events etc) which I figured I do not need tack-sharp pictures. I mean when you shoot events, unless you pixel peep, I think 18-200 or 17-50 will give similiar results.

For close ups or product shoots (which I do more often now), I decided to get a Tamron 90mm Macro lens which will be tack sharp in these situations... Also the 90mm f2.8 will double up as a fast mid tele. Will keep 50mm f1.8 as a fast portrait/short tele. So these 2 will complement the 18-200.

So now I will sell the 2 lens and have 18-200mm, 50mm f1.8 and 90mm f2.8 .

 

[Yapster]

I'm in Washington now and I love the 18-200mm I rented. It allowed me to shoot well even in low light (on static subjects). A lot of shots I dont think I will be confident of getting with my other lenses turn out good.

Thats why i put up both the 18-135mm and 17-50mm for sale. I plan to get the 18-200mm for general shooting (like walk about, events etc) which I figured I do not need tack-sharp pictures. I mean when you shoot events, unless you pixel peep, I think 18-200 or 17-50 will give similiar results.

For close ups or product shoots (which I do more often now), I decided to get a Tamron 90mm Macro lens which will be tack sharp in these situations... Also the 90mm f2.8 will double up as a fast mid tele. Will keep 50mm f1.8 as a fast portrait/short tele. So these 2 will complement the 18-200.

So now I will sell the 2 lens and have 18-200mm, 50mm f1.8 and 90mm f2.8 .

Glad you made your decisions~ Hope you get a good price for your sales man~ :thumbsup:

 

[5kywalker]

It's a joy to be able to have that range to shoot with the added VR feature indeed.

 

[hobbes187]

I'm back from Washington and convinced that I should buy a 18-200Vr for myself. So I bought one at Lords already!

Anyway, this is one of the pictures I took in DC and it basically made me decide on getting the lens. If anyone of you are interested, you can drop by my Flickr to take a look at the whole set I took in DC with the 18-200VR as well as my PnS - www.flickr.com/hobbes187 or you take a look at this thread: http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?p=3610322#post3610322

 

[hobbes187]

Did a test between the 18-200mm and my existing Tamron 17-50mm before selling it off and came up with the following conclusions (strictly my conclusions. Dont flame me if you disagree)

Conclusions
- The Tamron is slightly sharper than the Nikon. Only slightly and I mean you will notice the difference if you do 100% crop on a certain part of the picture and pixel peep. When viewed without 100% crop, the sharpness is comparable between the 2.

- Tamron seem to produce brighter images than the Nikon at the same settings. Prob due to the f2.8

- Resolution of the Nikon is slightly better than the Tamron. From my tests, the Tamron produces brighter pictures but in the process, it loses some details in the image. On the other hand, the Nikon manages to capture minute details that the Tamron fail to capture.

- Low light performance of Tamron is slightly better if used at F2.8 but worse if used at same aperture as the Nikon. When I compare the image taken by Tamron at 2.8 and Nikon at 3.5 in low light, the Tamron gives slightly sharper image. If stopped down, VR gives the nikon an obvious advantage with much better results. Overall, I rate the low light performance of both these lens as comparable for STATIC subjects.

- Tamron outperforms when taking low light moving subjects. I think I dont have to elaborate on this. However, I have a 50mm F1.8 and a 100mm F2.8 to complement my 18-200mm in these situations

- Colour reproduction is similiar. Both produce contrasty colours.

- Nikon built quality is better. Although my copy exhibits lens creep from day 1, the overall built quality and material of the nikon is better than Tamron.

- Get Tamron if you are on a budget and needs to shoot low light moving subjects. It is sharp and gives good value for money. However, the Nikon will serve you as well or even better in normal walk-about sessions with its longer zoom and VR. The downside is it is expensive but you get better built quality in return. If you need to do high sharpness/resolution work like product shoot/portraits, both these lens can do it but will not give stunning results. Use dedicated macro/portrait lenses for these.

 

[qing02051981]

I am also deciding whether to get the 18-200mm. Currently using D70s with default kit lens. Pics often blurred due to handshake. And often cannot zoom enough becoz kit lens only 4x zoom.

So should I get Nikon 18-200mm? :embrass:

Alternative i considering Tamron 90mm macro since macro lenses could also be used for zooming...

 

[shouyi]

I have been reading this thread with great interest.

I own both Nikon 17-55mm and 18-200 mm VR2. I wouldn't say I prefer one lense over the other base on build and quality. Of course they're important. But they are not as important as what you intend to use them for.

Essentially, as many have said before me.. .. the type of lense you need depends on what you're shooting.

Before you get any lense, determine what your interest is, next your budget (I mean how much you have and want to spend). :lovegrin:

 

[shouyi]

I'm back from Washington and convinced that I should buy a 18-200Vr for myself. So I bought one at Lords already!

Anyway, this is one of the pictures I took in DC and it basically made me decide on getting the lens. If anyone of you are interested, you can drop by my Flickr to take a look at the whole set I took in DC with the 18-200VR as well as my PnS - www.flickr.com/hobbes187 or you take a look at this thread: http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?p=3610322#post3610322

Great shots you have! I'm sorry that I've eventually pulled out the sale of my 18-200mm VR2. Glad you've gotten a copy too. I agree it's a great walkabout/travel lense!

 

[KTKTKT]

Unless you are into wild life photography, you should not use 135-200mm range much. Why not keep the tamron 18-50 & get a 85 f1.8. This way you get 2 great lens that give you decent image & not spending too much. Changing len is inconvience but it's a must if you piority is picture quality.