Upgrading to D90 and 18-200mm lens?

<p>Hey there,<br>

In the next few weeks I'm upgrading my D40 for a D90 and getting myself the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D Lens. I'm not happy with my Nikon 18-55mm kit lens at all. I am really looking into getting something like a 18-200mm lens for portraits and general subject matter. I really am overwhelmed by everything out there how ever. What are peoples recommendations?<br>

Thank you so much!</p>

<p>D90 + 18-105 VR kit, very usable range and very good quality. 50/1.8 for shallow DoF things.</p>

<p>Kate, I am presently using D80 with 18-200 VR lens. its very handy and good lens. The advantages are: you can always keep it attached with the body which reduces dust problems, its a very good range and will be quite adequate for portraits; Its a short zoom lens and handy; You can have fantastic landscape shots. The disadvantages are: in the widest part, there is a bit of barelling if you are taking a very big structure as in architecture photography from close quarters, image quality may not be as good as 18-55 + 70-200 combo. For travelling and general photography 18-200 satisfies all your needs.</p>

<p>Kate -</p>

<p>Why aren't you happy with the 18-55? Is it because it's not long enough to get close on the top end? Or are you not satisfied with the sharpness?</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a love it or hate it lens. It's easily Nikon's best seller, thus a lot of people have opinions and experience with it. When it was first released, the retail price was $650.00 US. Demand and prices have fulcuated but it remains a good seller.</p>

<p>If you're not satisfied with the 18-55 because of the focal length then the 18-200 will help a lot. If you're not satisfied because of low light performance then the 18-200 won't. If it's sharpness you want then spend the $1500-$2000 on the 70-200 vr.</p>

<p>The other nice thing about the 18-200 is that it typically doesn't set off alarms of security guards and other authority type figures as being a "Pro" lens.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Be careful. Sometimes when you buy all the "whistles and bells," you may find you really do not need them.</p>

<p>I have a D40/18-55, and the only thing that I find lacking is no AF on older glass. It is the most modern body to offer 1/500 flash sync.</p>

<p>Kate, I have the D300 and use the 18-200 VR as my walk-around lens. It stays on my camera the majority of the time. It is great for travel as it is very versatile. It has the ability to produce very nice images and will be an excellent lens on your D90. There are lots of opinions about this lens as you probably have read. My feeling is that Nikon designed an excellent all purpose lens for photographers like us...serious but not pro. It does have significant barrel distortion at the wide end and can be slightly soft at the long end, wide open, but in my experience this can be debated. The distortion can be minimized by using the lens "correctly" or purchasing the software to correct it(like DXO optics Pro 5). I think that you will be very pleased with the 18-200 and get years of use out of it. I just took mine on a trip to Las Vegas. This shot is from Red Rock Canyon with the 18-200 at f8, 18 mm, iso 200 at 1/320 sec, handheld. And, the VR works well.<br>

Good Luck and enjoy your new outfit!<br>

Dick</p><div></div>

<p>Just to keep things even, I'm in the other camp.<br>

I bought the D80, 50 1.8, 18-200VR about a year and a half ago and have effectively replaced the 18-200 with other lenses because I find the optical quality inferior (sharpness, vignetting, bokeh) and the zoom creep annoying. It will probably be a less sharp, and have significantly more distortion, than your kit lens. One of my "replacement" lenses, the very cheap 55-200VR, beats the 18-200 by a substantial margin. Image for image, even my cheap $180 Canon A720 P&S produces sharper images (though, of course, noise becomes a limiting factor due to the much smaller sensor). It is a good travel lens because of its range and the VR does work well and helps a lot in lower light situations, but even after two "repairs" I find the lens to be not very sharp beyond the central area, making it not that useful for images where edge sharpness really matters. For example, I have a series of shots of islands in the harbor, and even stopped down to f/11, the islands at the edges of the frame are not sharp. Also, there is significantly more vignetting at medium focal lengths than any of my other lenses, making shots where the sky is significant more problematic.<br>

I still keep it and carry it around, because it's good when I'm in a new situation, but if I had it to do over again I would not buy it thinking it was my main lens.<br>

But then, that's why they make different flavors of ice cream.</p>

<p>The way I look at it, every lens is a tool, and every tool has compromises. Sometimes the compromise is focal length, sometimes it's size/weight, sometimes it is price.</p>

<p>My thoughts on the 18-200VR are more like Richard. It is a great lens for what it does. Is it the greatest portrait lens ever made? I wouldn't call it that. There are better portrait tools out there. For that matter, the 18-200 might not be the greatest for any specific need <em>except</em>......</p>

<p>Where the 18-200 really excels is versatility. It is a relatively compact lens that gives good images across an exceptional focal range that covers almost every situation. As a walkaround lens for travel, it is simply unbeatable. There are many other lenses out there that will do something specifically better but there is none that will do so much with just one lens.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a good all around lens where carrying extra gear or changing lenses is an issue, this is the perfect lens. If you need a specific tool for a specific job, there are many other specialty lenses out there.</p>

 

<p>I think many people are using a similar set up and are probably very happy. Since you are looking for a do everything type set up you might just find yourself happy with a camera like the Canon G10. It would be a lot cheaper and would give you excellent quality pictures. Many of the fixed lens camera's are very nice with a very usable zoom range. </p>

<p>18-200 is a great vacation lens. It's not a great portrait lens imho.</p>

<p>The majority of my photos are landscapes when I'm vacation and a few street scenes thrown in. The 18-200 serves that purpose quite well. You can do better for portraits with a prime.</p>

<p>kate, if you want a great portrait lens for your D40, how about the tamron 28-75/2.8? it's cheaper and sharper than the 18-200, and the newer models have a BIM so it will AF w/ your camera, unlike the 50/1.8. another great portrait lens in the 18-200 price range is the sigma 50-150/2.8. the only reason to get the 18-200 is convenience. if you want optical quality, it's better to split up that range.</p>

 

<p>Well Eric, I am definitely purchasing the D90 in the next two weeks and so I am open to other options. I am just unaware really as to what to try. So any other options would be welcomed.</p>

<p>Kate, I don't think you ever said what it is about the kit lens that you're not happy with. It's kind of necessary to know that to recommend anything else. </p>

<p>I personally can recommend the 16-85 VR; I think it's a dynamite lens that has Nikon's full bag of tricks to give maximum versatility without so much zoom range that image quality is affected. It's not just a matter of specifications; the package just works very well. The VR is particularly more effective than others I've tried, for example, and it's the only way you can get wider than 18mm and have VR with any lens - handy at times.</p>

<p>However, for portraits, there are lots of better choices. Actually, the humble 55-200 VR is quite good in my opinion because long focal lengths are naturally more bokey than short, and that lens is cheap and a good complement to the 16-85 for everything else. Other good options are fixed-length lenses in the 85-135 range or a fast telephoto such as any flavor the 80-200 f/2.8. For more "environmental" portraits a 50mm or 35mm prime is a good choice. I very much like the slightly out-of-focus backgrounds I get with a 35mm shot at moderate apertures with the subject fairly close to the camera: a very pleasant and engaging effect in my opinion, which you can also do with any zoom in that range.</p>

 

<p>I am getting a D90 soon. As a "walkabout quickie" camera, I've been using a D70s for the past three years with a Tamron AF 28-300 (I "stole" it from my F100). Any comments about the Tamron 18-200 VR for the D90 as a "traveling lens?" [For "serious" photos of my kids and family or birds and animals, I still shoot an F3 with Nikkor 85mm f1.4 or a Nikkor 500mm f8, etc] And, please, no comments about having TOO many cameras. . .The IRS was good enough to "buy" them for me when I was working. . .Now, I am retired and trying to get by on a fixed income <smile></p>