I used to have Nikon D90.....

<p>Hi All,<br>

I used to have Nikon D90 with 18-200mm lens but unfortunately last week some one broke into my car and stolen camera and other stuff.<br>

However, I had content insurance, hence what would you recommend guys? Worth going for the same ?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Rohit</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you were happy with it, why not?</p>

<p>I'd go for a better lens like Tamron 17-50/f2.8 VC or, if you have a generous budget Nikon 17-55/2.8. Later I'd add Sigma 50-150/2.8 or Nikon 70-300VR.</p>

<p>I would select a different lens. The Nikon 18-105 IS. Add a used 80-200/2.8 or 180/2.8 later.</p>

<p>Agree with most on replacing the body like-for-like.</p>

<p>Lens - might be an opportunity to swap for the 16-85VR which is well regarded for quality as far as the consumer-grade zooms go. And then as some of the other suggest you can build onto that with something longer.</p>

<p>(Of course you could change to much faster better glass but I'm presuming you don't want to spend way over what you will be granted by your indurance company in the first instance).</p>

<p>Anyway like I said if it were me in your shoes, presuming you were reasonably happy with what you had, it would be D90 + 16-85</p>

<p>I would definately get another D90. I have a Nikon 18-200 VR and I love it, but I think I would get a Sigma 18-250 OS HSM instead. From the reviews I've seen, it's just as good and at least $200 less. I would use that $200 for a flash or another lens. You could get an SB-600 flash, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, a Nikon 35mm f/1.8, or put it towards a more expensive lens.</p>

<p>You might also consider a used D300 body (more rugged, more weather proof, better autofocus) as they are getting close to the price what I paid for my D90 new last year, though D90s are getting cheaper now too.</p>

<p>I agree with Mihai: pick up the Tamron 17-50. Throw in a few extra bucks and get the 70-300VR. You'll thank the thief.</p>

<p>It seems news about new Nikons are about to surface early Feb, or so Thom Hogan has it. It might be worth to sit that out, if only as D90's might get cheaper if a successor is announced.</p>

<p>Apart from that... without you saying whether or not you were happy with your setup - and if the latter, why - , any recommendation is rather baseless, isn't it.</p>

<p>If you were happy with the 18-200, I'd stick with it. I have one for walk around stuff, and I don't see any faults with it. No, it's not a 2.8, but it does a whole lot for one lens. Probably my most used lens purchase.</p>

<p>I'd also recommend looking at the 16-85. I find it's a perfect compliment to the 70-300 (same 67mm filters) and has enough overlap that you're not constantly changing lenses. I also love the 10-24.</p>

<p>I happily use all three on a D90. Sorry about the loss.</p>

<p>If you liked the 18-200, I'd say get the 16-85. better lens, just a little less money, the 2mm at the wide end is way more useful than the stuff at the long end, imho.</p>

<p>Since the OP did not specify in this thread what type of photography he is interested in, it is difficult to make any meaningful suggestions. However, about 6 months ago, he expressed that he wasn't happy with the 18-200: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TquI">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TquI</a></p>

<p>I have used that lens quite a bit now. It is a fairly decent lens and great for traveling light. Its wide end is fine but the long end near 200mm is quite weak. If you cannot get some decent images from it, the problem is not the lens. See the previous thread for more discussion.</p>

<p>If you change gear, you are bound to miss some of the features of what you had. Even if you buy a D3, you will miss the small body of the D90, and if you buy a 17-55/2.8 lens, you will miss the flexible zoom of the 18-200.<br>

In the end you will be tempted to buy what you had before the theft in addition to what you bought for the insurance money. The by far cheapest option is to buy what you had before. If you are happy with it, there is not much reason to change. Except that it is more fun. :-)</p>

<p>Rohit,</p>

<p>I hope your insurance provider compensates you with replacement value.</p>

<p>Given your situation, I would again purchase the Nikon D90 and Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. The 11X zoom Nikon 18-200mm VR is one of the most versatile lenses that Nikon has ever produced. Performance is quite amazing for such a focal range. It is my favorite walk around lens, and even at the long end, I can produce acceptable, (sellable), images stopped down to f11. If I encounter a subject that I think requires a more serious optic, I change lenses or return to the scene later with a specific lens. Learn how to work around the minor foibles of this lens and you can get stunning images. With my Nikon 12-24mm and Nikon 18-200mm in my bag, I feel like I can cover just about any shooting situation.</p>

<p>I had heard and read so many good things about the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR that I borrowed one from a friend in order to check it out for myself. Although, I found the extra 2mm at the wide end useful, and contrast a little better, I did not find it's performance improved enough to want to replace the convenience of having an 11X focal range in one lens. </p>

<p>May be a little bit off-topic but, why is there so many people not happy with the 18-200? Okay, it's not sharp on the very long end, but I find it quite flexible and a good walk-around lens. It's not a fast/pro lens btw.</p>

<p>If someone could post some horrible samples, share some opinions based on personal experience as to why it's so bad. I ain't got any but I hardly get to use that lens.</p>

<p>I rather like the fact that there is no one superior solution. Reading Mr. Hooper's response shows the same thoughtfullness and reflection that makes forums productive. I don't agree with the selection because the 2mm wide and slightly better contrast are very important for me. I also don't mind carry three lenses 10-24, 16-85 and 70-300, a lot less than I used to carry with primes, but his selection is superior for him. Reflecting on what you want to achieve and how you like to work is now your enviable task, since in the end you get to buy new stuff to suit your needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May be a little bit off-topic but, why is there so many people not happy with the 18-200? Okay, it's not sharp on the very long end, but I find it quite flexible and a good walk-around lens. It's not a fast/pro lens btw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That topic has been discussed countless times. It is all about expectations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May be a little bit off-topic but, why is there so many people not happy with the 18-200? Okay, it's not sharp on the very long end, but I find it quite flexible and a good walk-around lens. It's not a fast/pro lens btw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, from my point of view, 18-200 is a good walk-around lens as you said. I have a walk-around lens too and I am happy with it (Tamron 18-270 VC). But if I'd have to have only one lens, I'd not pick a consumer all-in-one lens but one more specialised, that's why I recommended Tamron 17-50 VC. Sure, with 17-50 you loose a lot of range but you get better performance in the most used range of focals. The aperture versatility is much important to me than the focal length versatility.</p>

<p>In other words, I'd preffer less pictures, less versatility, reduced range of focals but greater IQ for everything I produce. But that's me...</p>

<p>I completely agree with you Mihai, I also value aperture over length versatility. I go for primes whenever I can, sometimes I just can't. From that standpoint, and as Shun pointed out, given the expectations I would have from a consumer walk-around lens, I don't think the 18-200 is that bad. I think it compares well with the competition.</p>

<p>As for the OP, I would go out and try something different, either the Nikon 16-85 or the Tamron 17-50; taking the opportunity to try and learn something new. I would also add something like a 80-200, but I'm not a pro and I don't depend on the capabilities of the gear I use.</p>

<p>You are the only person who can answer that question. If you are happy with the D90 then get another. If you are not happy with the 18-200mm then you need to find the answer why not and choose a lens that does what you need. Otherwise get another. I expected to change lenses when I got my first SLR 35 years ago. I still expect to change lenses now when needed otherwise I would have been happy with a P&S and not carry the extra weight around. Still sometimes I would rather have a good P&S for hiking but I don't want to worry about the DSLR staying in the car while I am out overnight so that is my compromise.</p>

<p>My D90 and 16-85 lens is a wonderful combination. I chose the 16-85 over the 18-200 because the picture quality was paramount to me.</p>

<p>From last two three days just reading reviews on Nikon D300, D300s & Nikon D700 as total what i paid one year back was around 3.5k for which today i will get D300s but with no lens.<br>

However another option I am thinking about is D700 which is also a good camera too.<br>

Does any one have 18-200 VR II i hav't seen its reviews on the net. I read that they have fixed the zoom crip option in VR II but hav't seen any reviews/feedback about it.</p>

 

<p>Hi, yes i have posted before regarding views about 18-200 as I have seen other lens performance but i choose it because it gave me flexibility from 18-200 which is really good thing but also came zoom crip with that lens too once you go beyond 135.</p>

<p>I admit that, i am not a pro and it was my first DLSR kit, hence just curious about point of view of other coligues (with 18-200) because it launched for the first time from Nikon in 18-200 range just wanted to know are there any defects with the lens or not.<br>

As far as D90 is concern offcouse i bought the best in the market (mid range). But what I have seen so far its not worth to upgrade it to D300 or D700 which is again twice expensive (body only) with same pixel i think the sensor is EXPEED with 51 point AF system.<br>

Would appreciate if someone can tell me if they have 18-200mm VR II.<br>

Thanks again for responses really appreciate it.<br>

Rohit</p>