18-200mm vs 18-55 & 55-200mm

would having a

18-200mm lens better

than having two

lenses (18-55 and

55-200.)

what would be the

advantage of having

one 18-200 over 2

lenses?

other than having to

change the lenses in

between?

so 2 lenses

18-55+55-200 can

cover the same range

as one 18-200.

thank you

Having handled (but not optically tested) all three I would definitely prefer the 18-200 over the plastic mount, relatively flimsy 18-55 and 55-200. The 18-200 VR is better built and would be far handier since you would seldom need to change lenses, which suits the needs of many photographers.

 

I sold my 24-120 VR last year to pay for vehicle repairs. I miss it. The thing was a good performer and excellent value. If I was shopping for another comparable lens I'd definitely consider the 18-200 VR for all-around use, over the 24-120 and 16-85 VR Nikkors, especially for a backup dSLR (I don't really need another lens in this focal range for my D2H, tho').

The 18/200 is better made than the plastic mount 18/55 and 55/200.

 

I started with the 18/70 and then wanted longer lens and the 55/200 VR fit my price. It is decent optically, mechanically all plastic including the mount. The plastic mounts break if they get a side hit, although they seem to wear ok.

 

Given your two choices, I would take the 18/200. It is an OK, but not great lens.

 

Look at the lens tests

 

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

Why pick the 18/55? It is small and easy to use and carry. Nice if you don`t need the long end all that often. If you go somewhere where you want it like I have done some kids sporting events, put on.

If you are going to be vacationing and will be out in the field with limited ability to change lenses on

the fly, the 18-200 is, in my experience, hard to beat. I vacationed in Alaska with that lens two years ago and was

DELIGHTED to be able to zoom all the way from wide to tele quickly and therefore take some great shots I would have

missed if I'd had to change lenses.

If you don't mind changing lenses and want/need to save money, get the two lens combo. Otherwise go for the 18-200mm.

Jeff,

 

I got my D40 as a first DLSR to see how I got on with one before spending too much money on something fancier.

 

It came with the plastic 18-55 so I thought, "Oh well I can always get something better later."

 

I don't print larger than A4 size but I've been amazed by the quality of the prints from the camera lens combination. I do a lot of hiking and really appreciate the low weight compared with my film F90x and 28-105 combination.

 

The 18-55 surprised me again the other day when trying for a closeup on a windy day. I though I'd try the built-in flash at about 1 foot distance - not something normally recommended. With the lens at 55 mm the exposure was uniform - due no doubt to the small lens not casting the shadow that a bigger would have done. Of course the lighting was flat but on a windy day with poor light there was not much of an alternative. Try that with a big 18-200!

What's more the max reproduction ration of 1:3.2 is one of the best of all the general purpose zooms.

 

Don't dismiss the little 18-55 - it may be plastic but with light use it may well be OK. If you do break it you haven't lost too much money.

 

You can find tests of 18-200, 18-55 and 55-200 at www.photozone.de

 

I have lenses going back to the 1960s all built to very high standards and still in good condition but I don't use them. With the light use they have had it could be argued that the quality and durability were too high!!

I have a copy of the 18-200 and it does what it was intended to do...the idea of having just one lens to cover the whole range from 18mm to 200mm is extremely useful in theory and mostly acceptable in produced results. I have taken some really nice photographs in botanical gardens and flats fishing with the lens but every time I use it I just wish it was a lot faster. Plus a lot of distortion at the wide end which bugs me quite a bit. Probably if it really did all that comparable to the pro glass it would be too expensive to purchase by those who would initially consider such a lens to start with. So the lens is really more suited to a casual type photographer who just wants to shoot, not change lenses and would be happy with what the lens can do. I use it when out fishing on the boat because I am not putting my expensive glass on and expose it to salt spray etc. Compared to the two kit lenses, I think it is a good alternative with a better build. So there you have it...if you want it, get it.

"what would be the advantage of having one 18-200 over 2 lenses?"

 

Quality-wise, there would not be a substantial difference, at least during the day. However, the 18-200 has a couple advantages. First, no need to change lenses. This can be important when either you can't change lenses, don't have the time, or the environment is nasty and you simply don't want to take a chance.

 

Second, the 18-200 has VR throughout the range. This is very helpful, day or evening. Picking up a couple extra stops in low light is really important. You don't have that option with the combo.

Hi Jeff,

 

I was in a similar situation as you, needing the cover the 16-200 range. I have (had) the 16-85. One thing I'll say for it, the construction

is good, a metal mount and the same for the barrels. Well, on my first outing, the quick release plate on my tripod failed, and the

camera lens combo on to the rocks. The front of the lens took the impact (filter and lens hood gone). Had the mount and or barrels

been plastic, it would have been a total loss. Nikon was able to repair it and the lens is on its way back to me now.

 

I had been considering the 55-200 VR to complete the range, but not any more. Maybe the 70-300 VR, but while it has a metal mount,

the barrels are plastic. The 18-200 has a metal mount, I don't know about the barrels.

 

FWIW, in the short time I used it, I did not notice any significant increase in image quality in the 16-85 vs. my 18-70 (which I had sold to

finance the purchase). If I had to do it again, I'd get the 18-70/70-300 combo.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7391331

 

An example of my 18-200 . . . At the end of the day no matter what lens I was using last, the 18-200 goes back on as my standard walk around standard. I really like the lens. Perfection is the enemy of accomplishment, and the goal here is to learn, have fun, and share the wisdom of experiences.

Bruce,

 

You can get VR versions of both the 18-55 and the 55-200. The 18-55 version is new but the the 55-200 has been around for some time. It's possible that the VR on the 18-200 and 16-85 is better, 4 stops improvement rather than 3.

 

Jeff,

 

If you do go for the separate lenses I'd make sure I bought the VR version of the 55-200. On the 18-55 it's of less benefit, the advantage will be mainly for photographing static subjects indoors without flash.

I just saw over 200 photos taken by a friend with this lens and they were the sharpest I've ever seen. And I'm a Canon owner!

I use the 18-70mm and like it. A friend of mine has the 18-55mm and 18-200mm and is quite happy with both. I think the 18-200mm stays on his camera. All of these lenses are a bit slow for me but work fine in good light or with a tripod. The 18-55mm is so inexpensive that repairing is probably not an option. If I where to buy a new walk about lense it might be the 16-85mm as I think the wide end would be more important than a slow 200mm tele. I think it depends more on your use as to which lens is best. Do you need the full range. Will you be shooting any action in lower light levels? Will you be walking alot.

Overall, the image quality you'll get from the two separate lenses will exceed the 18-200 VR. However, whether or not you, Jeff, will notice these differences with photographs you'll take is up for debate. Differences in lens sharpness will only start to become apparent if you shoot with a steady tripod and head; even from that point, differences in the real world will only become obvious at larger print sizes. The advantages and disadvantage of either lens combination has already been stated earlier, so I won't fall into redundancy. You can't go wrong with either, really. But if you think that you'll get tired of changing lenses, then by all means get the 18-200 VR (and yes, I've shot with it/own it, and also a number of other Nikon lenses, professional and consumer). The most important thing is that you actually use your camera kit. If having one do-it-all lens means that you'll take more shot, then go for it.

On a side note, the 18-200 VR isn't as bad as some previous posters made it out to be (heck, for all we know, their sample was just a bad one). I'd take a look at the following websites for objective reviews:

 

http://www.bythom.com/

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

An 18-200 <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6692079&size=lg"><b>used wide when VR reall helped</b></a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6658996"><b>used long when VR really helped</b></a>, and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6868344&size=lg"><b>used long in brighter light where VR wasn't an important</b></a>.

<br><br>

I'd take it over the mentioned two lenses any day of the week. Just the convenience of not juggling lenses alone. It's a fantastic walk-about lens. If I were going to own and carry two, I'd probably use it and supplement it with a fast prime like the $110 50/1.8 to start. I say this as someone who DOES also have some big expensive 2.8 glass, but realizes that not all lens-carrying situations are the same.

I had the 18-70 & 70-300 VR combo that was great for me on my D200. When I upgraded recently to the D300 I bought the

kit that included the 18-200 and I couldn't be happier with this lens. I sold my 18-70 and I just got back from a 2 week trip

to Italy and the great zoom provided by the 18-200 allowed me to carry 1 lens and I only mounted my 70-300 once when I

needed just a little extra reach. I would whole heartedly recommend the 18-200 to anyone for a great all around lens and

the ability to no have to change lenses while traveling on a boat down the Grand Canal in Venice was a great advantage to

me.

I was very hesitant to purchase the 18-200mm Nikkor zoom because of statements like the above. Much to my surprise, I've found it to be an

excellent, versatile, and very sharp lens, with NO lens creep. Maybe I got lucky and got a good sample.

Jeff.... Do you have a camera and lens at this time? If you have a body and the 18-55mm that may have come

with it as a kit, I'd have few reservations about adding the 55-200mm VR. ESPECIALLY if budget matters.

 

It really comes down to cost and convenience. The 18-55mm non-VR and the 55-200mm VR will set you back,

total, $350 new at B&H, and about $250 used. The 18-200VR costs $680 new, and I wouldn't buy this complex

lens used. It comes down to whether carrying a second lens and swapping them will bother you, or if you can

afford the 18-200.

 

Optically they will be very similar and I'm not sure you'd easily tell prints apart. The 18-200 might be a little

heavier than you're imagining, so keep in mind either of the other lenses are much lighter on the camera. Also, if

you're new to photography, the 18-55/55-200 kit will let you learn just as well as the 18-200. My opinion? Get

the 18-200VR if you can afford it and it's your only lens. And get the 18-55/55-200VR if budget matters.

 

Out of curiousity I just looked. If you own nothing yet and you're on a budget, B&H has the D40 with the 18-55 II

and the 55-200VR for $609 after $100 Nikon rebate. The only way you'll beat that is buying used.

I just have to add that my 18-200 VR has not been unacceptably soft and is my standard walk-around lens for my D300. A couple of recent examples...<div></div>

And here is the second example...<div></div>

Jeff,

 

I think you would take the 18-200 VR if you can not afford for the combo 16-85/ 70-300 VR .

You can find one used like brandnew from someone get it as a discound of D300 combo, at only around $550 US. It's worth at that price.

 

I ever owned the kit 18-55/55-200 VR but I sold them to get the 18-200 and I don't regret. The 18200 does give me a lot of convenience,general purpose, couple it with a flash like SB-600 is great. IMO, its optical performance is little better the kit, at least not worse, as some above pictures demonstrated.

Simple answer is that any lens can be a good or bad sample, just luck of draw. The combo offers money savings if need be. I have owned both the 18-200VR [2 samples] and currently I bought a D60 and combo kit when I want to go light. Both offer decent image quality for the cost overall. The combo lenses kit, it very cheap, if you do not like it, am sure you won't lose too much and I figure I can always give the lenses to one of my teens if need be and not worry if it comes back in less then stellar shape. My general opinion of image quality is very similar overall. Another way to look at it is, if something happens to one lens mounted on camera I still have a second, if something happens to the all in one, you are out of business, all your eggs in one basket.... Here is a sample of the D60 and 55-200VR...<div></div>

<p>jeff yoon wrote:</p>

<p><i>

would having a 18-200mm lens better than having two lenses (18-55 and 55-200.) what would be the advantage of having one 18-200 over 2 lenses? other than having to change the lenses in between? so 2 lenses 18-55+55-200 can cover the same range as one 18-200. thank you</i></p>

 

<p>A few things to note:

<ul>

<li>From an image quality stand point, the 18-55 + 55-200 might have the edge. The 18-200 is reported to be soft around 135mm. I find my copy to be ok at that range, but it is definitely softer above 100mm. But that's based on 100% viewing of the 12mp files from my D300. When I view my 6mp D70 shots with this lens, I don't have any complaints. And in prints, the softness isn't really an issue. I shoot RAW files so when I use the 18-200VR, it generally means I adjust the contrast and black levels different from my other lenses, due to the 18-200VR's flatter contrast.</li>

<li>Build quality on the 18-200VR seems better than the 18-55 + 55-200 lenses.</li>

<li>The 18-200VR has a better VR and AF-S system which should result in better VR and faster AF. As well, you can manually override the AF w/o flipping any switches. This can be a handy feature in some cases.</li>

<li>Focal length of the 18-200's long end varies with focus distances. I don't know if this applies to the 55-200 as well. If not, then at some focus distances, the 55-200 will, in fact, have a longer focal length.</li>

<li>The 18-200VR has an annoying habit of zoom creep. Basically, the lens will zoom to its maximum focal length if tilted down, or zoom to its widest length if tilted up. On mine, keeping the lens set to 18mm tends to prevent this behaviour, but I still find it annoying.</li>

</ul></p>

 

<p>

I've got better performing lenses than the 18-200VR that cost more, as well as better performing lenses that cost less. The 18-200VR is also not my favourite lenses, not by a long shot. But I am reluctant to sell it because I find it to be very useful. If I'm going out for the day, I generally pick a lens I know I'll need, and then bring the 18-200VR just in case. For instance, if I'm going to do some street shooting, I'll plan on using my 24/2.8 but I'll bring the 18-200VR in case something else comes up.

</p>

<p>Right now, the only lens I'd consider trading the 18-200VR for is the 16-85VR because I'm more of a wide angle shooter.</p>

<p>larsbc</p>

I don't know how many times I've answered a similar question over the last month & a half.....

 

The thing with the 18-200VR is that it seems there's a variation in sharpness of the lens. I bought this lens last year in September. At the time I needed to establish which of three lenses I would wish to keep. The lenses were the 24-120VR, the 18-200VR & a Tamron 28-300. The lens was going to be a travel, convenience & when people come for visits lens. I tested the lenses & came to the conclusion that the 24-120VR left fairly fast. It just did not have enough reach for what I wanted. The Tamron I take on trail rides with the horses and thus still has a job with me. It's nice to know I'm not bringing along a super expensive lens with the horses just in case...

 

I may have a superior 18-200VR - - I don't know. But what I do know is - - it's super convenient for what I wanted it for. Also, late April a friend came for a visit. She had just bought a D80 & the 18-200VR and was just not doing well with the camera & lens. She came to me for a visit & we spent 6 days of intense training with her camera & lens. In order for me to see what was going on I used my 18-200VR on my D300 during her visit. I used it for a ton of different things & have to say I'm impressed with the lens. It is super versatile.

 

Please feel free to visit this gallery of mine http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/f200314254/ where pretty much all the shots are taken with the 18-200VR. I've got the sharpening setting from NX at about 5 - 6 out of 9. But I really like them there. There are some shots of Sanderlings in the Venice Beach gallery & those (& only those) are shot with the Tamron 200-500mm

 

I do not own the 18-55 & the 55-200. They are far too plastic for me to like working with. If I wanted two lenses & wanted some reach I would today go for the 18-70mm & the 70-300VR. If not, I would happily recommend the 18-200VR which is a great all around lens.

 

Good luck

 

Lil :-)