D90 + 18-200 or D90 + Tamron 17-50

<p >Hi everyone,</p>

<p >I am new here and in photography and I definitely need your advice. I am in the process of buying a DSLR and have come to the conclusion of the D90. So far my only experience with cameras are the classic compact Sony, Pentax etc. Now my question is should I buy the D90 kit with the 18-200 Nikon lens which I found in a good price or should I just buy the D90 body and add a Tamron 17-50.. From all the reading I have done I see that these two lenses are different but I really don’t know what to start shouting at. I have to admit I was very impressed with some creative pictures I saw with the Tamron 17-50 lens and with its contrast. Do you think that since I don’t have much experience my first steps should be with the D90 and the 18-200 or should I jump into deeper water ?? Please help me…. I am desperate.. As everyone here I want best possible outcome and quality in pictures. Of course I understand that it’s not only a matter of the camera but also the photographer! </p>

<p >Thank you all,</p>

<p>Do you have a camera now? What lens? What focal lengths are you presently using most? What kind of things do you like to photograph? It's impossible to tell you to go with either lens without more information. They're very different lenses. Each has its strong points.</p>

<p>I have a D80, which is more or less identical with the D90 except the sensor and video, and my most used lens on that camera is the Tamron 17-50. Very nice image quality for a reasonable price and f/2.8 all the way. I tried the Nikkor 18-200 two years ago and did not like it. Too slow aperture, particularly a long focal lengths, relatively expensive and zoom creep.<br /> But choice of lens is all very personal, and depends on what you want to do with your camera. I usually carry my camera with the Tamron, a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 and a Nikkor 70-300 ED. Since the two Nikkors were bought used, I paid less for the whole setup than for an 18-200.</p>

<p>I used to have an Nikkor 18-200mm, its a great walk-around lens to have, and will give you a lot of flexibility when on a holiday. Chances are, that you would not miss many shots because you do not have a long enough lens.<br>

That being said, I sold my 18-200mm recently and acquired a 70-200mm f/2.8. While I miss the wide end of the 18-200mm sometimes, I personally do not use that range very often. Also, f/2.8 gave me greater flexibility in low light. <br>

Like Luis said, each has its strong points, but here are my 2 cents. Get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I tried that lens at a camera store recently and quite liked it (the Vibration Control or 'VC' model). As you build your lens collection overtime, you will be better served if you start collecting the lenses that you would not have to sell frequently. I had not done it right and have lost a few hundred dollars in selling off slower lenses. All the best!!</p>

<p>I don’t own a DSLR at the moment just a compact Sony cybershot witch is nothing compare to any DSLR out there so this one is going to be my first one. I don’t like the pictures taken from the cybershot because they have nothing special in them.. I like to take creative photos of landscapes, family pictures as well as more of creative close up photos of people or objects. I am a newbie to photography so I will have to experiment. To be honest I have seen some pictures taken from the Nikkor 18-200 but dont amaze me as much as the Tamron 17-50 do.</p>

<p>If your family includes infant(s), you would need a longer lens. I have a 20 month old daughter and I find myself using upwards of 120mm on the 70-200mm more often than not while taking her pictures so as to get natural shots while she is busy doing her own things. Something to keep in mind.</p>

<p>Filippos, no one lens is going to do it all. Also, remember that the 17-50 users tend to be more experienced and specialized -- and also own and use other lenses -- which might explain why the pictures look better. The 17-50 is not long enough for flattering head shots (but fine for bust-length portraits). It does have better low-light ability and image quality, but the flexibility of the 18-200, specially if you intend to live with one lens for a long time is considerable.</p>

<p> With the current camera you have, what end of the zoom are you most commonly at? The wide, middle, or tele? How important is low-light capability to you? Neither lens does great macro, btw.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>18-200 will give you reach and flexibility when travelling so it's a good allinone travel companion but I'll not use it as a main lens. For this purpose Tamron 17-50 VC is much appropriate. Later on, when you will feel limited by the focal range, you can add a Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8 or a Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 and with these two lenses you can solve almost every situation.</p>

<p>Fast lenses are the best scenario. If you go for consumer zooms, soon you'll want to upgrade and be sure you loose money this way.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your time... Since I am new and dont understand everything you are mentioning here I think it would be wise to go with the 18-200. Its in the kit with the D90 and has a great price and its also an all around lens. So probably I will experiment for a little while with this lense. I just hope it will serve what I am looking for. (which i dont realy know!).</p>

<p>Hi Filippos-have fun with your D90; I have had mine for a little over a year and I love it! Happy shooting. cb :-)</p>

<p>Nikkor 18-200 = yuk!<br />Tamron 17-50 = mmmmmmm, goooooodd.</p>

<p>While the 17-50 will limit your use of long angles, the mentalities of shooting wide vs long are really very separate, but each have their place. It's not a bad idea to choose which focal range you prefer greater than 60% of the time, and put more money into THAT lens, then get a cheaper kit-quality lens for the other.</p>

<p>I would consider one of these two lenses:<br />Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di II VC SP<br />Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR</p>

<p>And one of these two:<br />Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D AF (Or, if you can afford it, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II)<br />Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR</p>

<p>I used to have the Nikon 18-200, it was the fourth lens I ever bought. Sold my 18-55 & 55-200 and ended up not using the 18-200 much (used my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 & primes much more), and eventually traded the 18-200 to the 55-200 VR + some cash. Sure the 18-200 is OK lens if you don't want to change lenses for some reason, but frankly I have regretted that I put my money on that (it was just OK with my D80, but performed poorly with my Fuji S5 Pro). I've tried the Tamron 17-50 couple of times and it rocks! Have to buy that one for myself someday.</p>

<p>So if I would have known then what I know now, instead of buying the 18-200 I would have bought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Now that is a lens I would never have regretted putting my money on. So I too would advice you to buy the Tamron 17-50 and used Nikon 55-200 VR (or something faster) if you need the reach, and possibly used macro like Tamron 90mm for the close ups.</p>

<p>since you yourself is not amazed by the 18-200mm, it wouldn't be wise to get it. like some above, i would suggest getting the tamron 17-50mm that you like. i have the non-motorized version and i like it. but i don't use it. i prefer the sigma 18-50mm on my D90. sometimes i use the tamron in my D60.</p>

<p>it's best to get the tamron 17-50mm and complement that with the cheap but excellent 55-200mm VR. with these two lens(es) you're all set to have all the fun in the great adventure in photography.</p>

<p>Hi Filippos,</p>

<p>If you can get the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR and your Nikon D90 for a good price, I would go with that combination. Nikon 18-200mm VR is an amazing lens. If you use this lens intelligently, you can get superb images. The Nikon 18-200mm gets disparaged on photo.net much more so than deserved in my opinion. I am puzzled by this because I can't believe there could be that many bad samples of this lens out there and I doubt there is anything special about my sample. Even if you just set your Nikon D90 to Auto and let your camera make all the decisions for you, the Nikon 18-200 will produce decent images. It's just an optical tool and I believe getting the most out of it is just a matter of knowing it's capabilities and taking advantage of them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think that since I don’t have much experience my first steps should be with the D90 and the 18-200 or should I jump into deeper water ??</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>technically, you would be jumping into shallower waters, since you would gain the benefit of using a shallow depth of field with a constant 2.8 aperture.</p>

<p>okay, here's the thing: the 18-200 is awfully convenient. it essentially turns a DSLR into a supercharged P&S superzoom with no shutter lag. it's great for travel and for times when you need both wide and telephoto shots, and don't want to change lenses. and it has VR, which helps with camera shake at longer focal lengths. it's not a sharp lens by default, but patient, careful shooters--like richard armstrong here on PN-- can coax good shots out of it.</p>

<p>the 17-50 OTOH is a completely different lens. instead of a long 11x zoom, its a compact 3x zoom with a constant 2.8 aperture. it's sharp even wide open and very contrasty at all apertures. the 18-200 really needs to be at f/9 to obtain sufficient contrast and sharpness, which means it's not great in low-light situations, especially with moving targets. if you stop the tamron down it changes from a low-light/action/shallow DoF lens to a landscape lens, with decent corner performance (though not as good at the edges as the 16-85 VR or 17-55). i would classify the 18-200 as an enthusiast lens. the tamron is a semi-pro lens which is good enough for many pros. and having "only" a 3x zoom is deceptive, since the tamron covers the most useful focal length on a DX body, from wide-angle to portrait.</p>

<p>the benefits of constant 2.8 aperture cannot be overstated. in addition to low-light performance and a brighter viewfinder, you get the ability to isolate the main subject with a blurred background and sharp foreground. also, while VR does help with camera shake at 135mm and beyond, it wont help freeze moving targets, since you need a fast shutter for that, and VR essentially lets you choose a slower shutter speed. unlike its much more expensive competitor the nikon 17-55, the 17-50 is an excellent travel/walkaround/street lens due to its light weight.</p>

<p>as far as image quality, it's not even close here. the tamron wins by a mile.if picture quality matters more than the convenience of not having to switch out lenses, this is a no-brainer.</p>

<p>as ramon points out, for the price of the 18-200, you can get a 17-50 (first version, without VC, which has faster AF) + a 55-200 VR and be covered for telephoto if and when you need it. so there's really no reason not to start out with the tamron from jump street and sidestep the slow variable aperture kit lens, especially if you want to become a good photographer and progress quickly.</p>

<p>if you need further incentive, allow me to post a pic with the tamron...</p>

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

<blockquote>

<p>Since I am new and dont understand everything you are mentioning here I think it would be wise to go with the 18-200. Its in the kit with the D90 and has a great price and its also an all around lens. So probably I will experiment for a little while with this lense. I just hope it will serve what I am looking for. (which i dont realy know!).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>hmm, just saw this comment. Filippos, you seem to be a little intimidated by all the technical mumbo-jumbo folks are throwing at you. don't be; we're only trying to save you some time and money.</p>

<p><strong>if image quality is a priority, i would not get the 18-200</strong> . you can find that out the hard way, or you can take our advice. you yourself say <em>"To be honest I have seen some pictures taken from the Nikkor 18-200 but dont amaze me as much as the Tamron 17-50 do"</em> . so are you saying you prefer not to be amazed by the pictures you will be taking? that doesnt make sense to me.</p>

<p>since you also say <em>"I like to take creative photos of landscapes, family pictures as well as more of creative close up photos of people or objects," </em> let me also suggest the <strong>16-85 VR</strong> instead of the 18-200. the 16-85 doesnt have a constant 2.8 aperture, and, like the 18-200, its quite slow on the long end. but its an excellent landscape lens with a really nice range, which should be fairly versatile and good for (posed or seated) portraits as well as wide shots. you wont be able to isolate subjects or shoot indoor action with no flash as with a 2.8, but you do get sharper corners, plus VR. i would still get the 17-50 personally, but that's mainly because i take a lot of action shots and need 2.8. if that's not you, the 16-85 might be a better fit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course you can take high quality images with the 18-200. It is a very versatile lens. But as Robert Hooper points out, there seems to be a PN consensus of giving it a poor rating. Rubbish. Try it, I am sure you will not regret it.</p><div></div>

<p>Beautiful image, Sven, and proof of what many happy owners of the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR know to be true.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is an exceptional value for the money. Mine had very good image quality and was only sold because the Nikon 17-55 is faster focusing and sharper.</p>

<p>18-200 has taken a lot of wonderful photos for me.</p>

<p>I've got more than a few images where I had to zoom all the way from the wide to the tele end or vice versa and would NOT have gotten the shot if I'd had to switch lenses.</p>

<p>If you are not printing above 8 x 10 and the occasional 11 x 14, you might see very little or no difference between it and a "pro" lens, if well-shot at optimum apertures. Add something like a 35mm f1.8 DX or such for low-light wide aperture stuff and you're set. I rarely use any lens beyond those two. Love 'em!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've got more than a few images where I had to zoom all the way from the wide to the tele end or vice versa and would NOT have gotten the shot if I'd had to switch lenses.</p>

<p>you might see very little or no difference between it and a "pro" lens, <strong>if well-shot at optimum apertures.</strong> Add something like a 35mm f1.8 DX or such for low-light wide aperture stuff and you're set.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>horses for courses, as they say. it kind of depends on shooting style, but let's say you're going from good light outside to bad light indoors, like the shot i posted earlier. even at ISO 2000, i still had to dial in 2.8 to get a 1/100 shutter, which i needed to freeze the motion of the cuban bar band. had i had the 18-200 mounted, the widest aperture i could have gotten would have been 3.5, which would have dropped my shutter speed one click, to 1/80, introducing more blur from subject motion. VR would not have helped. had i zoomed past 35, my max aperture would have dropped to 4.2, which would have required me to drop down one more click, to 1/60, or bump the iso to 3200, effectively giving me a choice between a blurry and a noisy photo. plus, IQ wide open on the 18-200 is not the greatest, so in situations like that, where optimum aperture (f/9-11) is not possible with an 18-200, i would have had to switch lenses, thus negating the all-in-one "advantage."</p>

<p>earlier that same day, i shot the waterfront of Havana with the 17-50 and used a narrower aperture for more detail. i didnt really miss the telephoto end. in fact, i shot with that lens all day, in varying light conditions and got some pretty good results. the point is that for walkaround use, the 17-50 is just as versatile in its own way, and maybe more, since you have more control over depth of field and are more adaptable to light conditions. the tradeoff is that you can't go from wide to tele in a single bound with a 17-50, just as the 18-200 isn't great for available-light pics, and should never be shot wide open if image quality matters at all.</p>

<p>FWIW, i never said the 18-200 couldnt produce good results, but if you look at MTF charts, the tamron not only has higher resolving power, but does so at wider apertures. so if image quality is a paramount concern, that's a no-brainer.</p>

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

<p>here's the crop:</p><div></div>

<p>and now, a crop of sven's image (EXIF shows f/11, 1/800, iso 320)...</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<p>Which Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 do you have? The VC or non VC? They seem to get different reviews.</p>

<p>What is the most significant feature in a photograph that one can immediately identify to be produced by a (d)SLR, as opposed to a compact? Shallow DOF! Clearly due to the larger sensor used in the dSLRs, dSLRs also do better in low light but the gap is closing. I thus ask those who want to "upgrade" to dSLRs, why? Why are you doing this? If you are shooting mostly in good light, a P&S can produce outstanding IQ! However with a P&S, you will never be able to produce IQ with shallow DOF to pop of your subjects (unless if you shoot in macro mode). For this same train of thought, it makes no sense to buy a dSLR and then mate it with a slow kit lens. These slow kit lenses will limit your ability to use DOF to blur the background and to shoot in low light, and you end up in the same place as before when you have your P&S, except that now you have something much bigger to carry around.</p>

<p>For most people, the 17-50mm range is what we shoot in vast majority of the time so I think one should buy the best/fastest lens you can afford to cover this range first. Thus the only lens I would suggest ANY ONE to buy is one of these 17-50mm f2.8 zoom lenses.</p>