18-200mm Zoom Pondering...

As some here know from discussions or images I have posted--I have a penchant for "event" and street photography. Events are not formal affairs such as weddings or graduations, but rather fairs, carnivals, outdoor concerts, or other gatherings of various and sundry people just engaged in 'human being.' :)

 

My D7100 kit consists of three lenses right now, two of which have proven to be quite stellar performers for this and other purposes:

 

• Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM
  
• Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro (OS) HSM | C
  
• Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED V
  

 

As is practice, I move fairly quickly through the crowds. In smaller venues, tight crowds and interiors the 17-70mm is perfect for most shots, as I am 'there' in a reasonable proximity to the subject. Larger, more diverse settings require the longer 55-300mm, as "stuff" is often found some distance away--or distance is necessary to preserve the interest of the shot without the perception of intrusion. Needless to say, a number of good images are being lost due to either too much or too little focal range--and no time to swap lenses.

 

So, a good compromise is in order. I am looking at two lenses right now, and the Nikkor seems to have an edge on sharpness. However I like Sigma, as the 'C' lenses can be fine-tuned in three ranges with a USB hub (which I have). Of these two lenses, what are your thoughts?

Please comment on these two suggestions first before launching off on Tamron, Tokina or some other lens brand... :p

 

• Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II
  
• Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM | C
  

Edited August 20, 2017 by PapaTango

Why not get a second camera body instead of replacing two lenses that work for you?

I opted for the Nikon 18-140 VR when I got my D7200.

I figured the 140 end is like a 210mm tele on a 35mm camera, and that was sufficient for me.

 

If you feel you need the added reach, I personally would go with the Nikon 18-200.

But I have no experience with the Sigma lenses.

I'm old fashioned but have never been happy with lenses running to the extremes of 18-200, too much compromise and much better choices are available. I'd spend the money on a second body, many are available for very good prices, and get an 80-200. I've not often needed a 300 for street photography, Just work to get a bit closer.

 

Rick H.

As an owner of the 18-140mm AF-S VR Nikkor, I second Gary that it's a very capable lens that can cover almost anything short of distant sport or wildlife with very good IQ.

 

Sorry, no experience of any 18-200 zoom. I just wouldn't expect a 10x plus zoom to deliver decent image quality, let alone have acceptable distortion characteristics.

PT -- I bought the Nikkor 28-300 for my FX cameras hoping for a result similar to that which you are seeking. It is not a bad lens, but when a lens has so much range, something has to suffer. I do not find it as sharp or satisfactory as the Nikon zooms with narrower range -- 24 to 120 or 24 to 85. Though I bought used, I wish I had rented and tried it first - since you have not yet bought, you have that opportunity.

Due to some trades last year, I got the Nikon 18-105 and long ago got the 18-200, love them both but good sense says sell one. Going to flip a coin. Maybe I'm just not picky but the IQ on both looks great to my eyes.

I love my 18-200 nikon VR as a all purpose walk around lens on my D300. I'm happy with the results.

When I want to travel light I take just 2 lens with me. the 18-200, and the nikon 12-24 for wide shots (sometimes just in my jacket pocket).

That covers most daytime shooting.

Between the two, I'd choose the Nikon over the Sigma. It's just a tad sharper at most FL's although distortion is bothersome.

 

One issue I have with both lenses is that wide open for both lenses at mid-FL's are just not wide open enough--f5.6 at 75mm for the Sigma and f5 at 70mm for the Nikon. I suppose that's one of the compromises you make with a superzoom. Like others, I opted for the Nikon 18-140mm instead.

I'd check which focal lengths you use most with the 55-300VR, to see if the 18-140VR could fit the bill. If you can do without the extra 60mm, it's simply the better lens.

With the proviso that I'm an FX shooter and have only played with one of these briefly, I've heard nothing but scathing comments on most 18-200 lenses since sensor resolution improved. Lovely lens to have on a D40, possibly a terrible lens to try to put on a 24MP body. I had a similar experience with my 28-200mm full frame lens, which was extremely versatile on a 12MP D700 and visibly awful on a 36MP D800. I can only suggest that Jay's 12MP D300 might not be showing up the issues that others have reported to the same extent.

 

Again, no personal experience - but I'd be surprised if the 18-140 (or a similar, shorter zoom) and a bit of cropping didn't work at least as well for you. The 18-200 is also not that small, for what it's worth.

I just learned to find interesting subjects within the lens range. Zoom of very wide range look strange.

I also have a D7100 and the 12-24 and 17-50. Great combo. I am taking a trip to the midwest/east this fall. I also have the 18-200 3.5-5.6. I have had it since it first came out and I really like it despite its short comings. Do I take my 70-200 2.8 or the 18-200? HaHaHa. The 70-200 stays home. Way too heavy for this worn out back.It will be mostly landscapes anyway.

Nikon 18-200mm VR II.

Why not get a second camera body instead of replacing two lenses that work for you?

 

Dieter, some part of me would like just that! :cool:

 

I can see myself with one of those fancy-damned reporter harnesses that sling both cameras--wearing a boonie hat and doing my best Hunter Thompson impression...

 

The reality is that between arthritis and old age, I don't want to carry a single thing around with me that is not absolutely essential to purpose, life, or limb. That includes more camera junk. Second, I would be looking at minimum at another D7100 body from the 'previously loved' market. Otherwise the next new body I intend on buying will be a full frame--and the wallet slaughtering cost of that and a spate of new lenses. Another time. :(

 

There is happy news though. All of you have sold me (along with a week's worth of research) on the 18-140mm Nikkor. I really did not look at this lens as my thinking was that it was just another cheap kit lens--as they are often removed from new kits and white boxed for separate sale. Construction-wise it is not a Sigma, but the overall performance beats the ~200mm variant. Usually I don't use the far ends of these lenses anyway as those are known problem areas. Less issues with the shorter focal length and playing about with the 55-300mm Nikkor demonstrated to me that in general I don't need much over 120mm for what I am after.

 

Next week an order goes in. Now I just have to decide whether to go grey or pony up the extra $100 for the USA market issue... :confused:

 

Thanks for the fish, gentlemen!

I don't want to carry a single thing around with me that is not absolutely essential to purpose, life, or limb.

Understandable.

Now I just have to decide whether to go grey or pony up the extra $100 for the USA market issue

Buy used, safe more. Bought mine at keh when they had an additional discount going; less than 60% of the new price.

I finally have this thing sussed out. Whatever the heck 'sussed' means... :confused:

 

After far too many hours of internet delving, I finally found a great deal with an online vendor at Fleabay that I have had VERY successful deals with before. Matter of fact, it's who I bought my D7100 from a year ago.

 

They offered a 30 day exchange for recalcitrant 'white box' goods, and I bought the 3 year SquareTrade warranty for $40 bucks. Then applied some earned Fleabay Bucks to it, plus another coupon code--and this little gem will arrive new in the box (as pulled from a kit camera--I suspect a D5300) for $290 and covered for three years.

 

Bought some step-up rings (to carry a 72mm polarizer) for this and my 70-300), a 67mm Tiffen clear filter, a genuine Knee-Cone HB32 hood, and another cold-shoe plate to be used with my laser focus assist gizmo. Total cost of this expedition? $340...

 

Such a deal I have for me... :cool:

Edited August 27, 2017 by PapaTango

But, WHAT cost $290?!! 18-140? Deadly suspense!:eek:

But, WHAT cost $290?!! 18-140? Deadly suspense!:eek:

 

OMG Sandy, you have to pay attention. The lens and the warranty. It was the 70-140, as I had already commited in an earlier post to believeing as strongly in this lens as some believe in sky gods!

 

Next time I will use puppets and crayons to illustrate my dialog... :p:rolleyes::cool:

Must be that short attention span thing - skimmed back just now and missed it again. 'Course it could be stress or something , after my fun part film day yesterday, I just picked up a minty F4 with Nikon AF zoom lens for 'bout 60% of that.:p

OMG Sandy, you have to pay attention. The lens and the warranty. It was the 70-140, as I had already commited in an earlier post to believeing as strongly in this lens as some believe in sky gods!

 

Next time I will use puppets and crayons to illustrate my dialog... :p:rolleyes::cool:

 

Love that 70-140 !

I turn my back for a week, and very strange lenses start appearing (among other things)...

I turn my back for a week, and very strange lenses start appearing (among other things)...

Indeed ... ;):D

It is now a real thing! :)

 

Arriving today, a Tiffen Digital DT Clear filter went on the front and it was off and away to-------> The basement... :p

 

Shot a bunch of Fleabay item photos and was duly impressed by the sharpness and VERY quick and quiet focus. This is a fat little thing, with a nice hand feel and great balance with or without the MB-D15 grip. With it the thing is a perfect ergonomic wonder!

 

This weekend I will go out and put it through the paces. Also test flying an Op/Tech USA triple harness for the first time--if all is well I will have my 'photographer @ large' setup well in hand. :cool:

The joy of new toys!:)