Nikon 18-200mm or separate 18-70mm & 70-200mm?

Hello!

 

I'm a keen amateur who enjoys, in particular, landscape photography. I also (for work) have to complete a fair amount of real estate photography and some food photography, along with some portraiture.

 

I currently have a Tamron 18-270mm lens and am looking to replace it. I purchased it as a travel lens a couple of years ago but honestly the image quality is not great (poor sharpness is a particular issue).

 

I have been advised that I should look to get three lenses - a 10-20mm lens (I already have a Sigma which has been great so far), and then have been recommended the Nikon 18-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. My question is: would the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR II be a good lens that would then cover the whole focal range, rather than having to have a separate 18-70mm and 70mm - 200mm lens?

 

Is there a reason (image quality?) I would be better going for two separate lenses? After my experience with the Tamron superzoom I'm a little bit hesitant about going for another superzoom.

 

Thank you!

You have been given good advice regarding avoiding superzooms, very convenient, but optically challenged.

 

I see you're DX.. which body (s) ? From what you shoot, it doesn't look like you need particularly 'fast' lenses.

 

The 18-70mm is a bit dated but optically good. Depending on finances you could get the 55-200mm VRII as opposed to the expensive 70-200mm f4 or very expensive 2.8.

Thank you for such a quick response Mike!

 

I shoot on a Nikon D5200

Do you have a budget in mind?

 

It might be handy for your short zoom to have VR to allow for handheld in dim condition. The older 16-85mm 3.5/5.6 VR is non to £££ these days, and gets a few mms at the long and wide end.

 

Lens 'sets' that have no overlap can occasionally be frustrating.

 

Do you have a prime of any length?

I don't have a budget in mind really, but trying to keep it as reasonable as possible. I can get used versions of the 18-70mm and 70-200mm for under £500 combined so would like to keep below or around that if at all possible.

 

I don't have any Prime lenses because I'm never really sure what length prime would be best for my needs.

"I'm never really sure what length prime would be best for my needs"

 

Food and portraiture shots are usually of the type where you are in compositional control and lend themselves to a nice prime probably of about 50mm.

 

The advantage of a prime is it allows a shallow Depth of Field, common traits in food and portraiture photography, as they invariably have a larger max. aperture, say 1.8 rather than the more common 4 or 5.6 for a slow kit zoom.

 

The usual way to determine what you 'need' is to either tape your 18-270mm at various prime lengths, say 50mm or 80mm and wander around..

 

...or look at the focal length you used when you've shot them in the past. The EXIF data keeps all the setting you used for any particular shot.

 

So, you might find most foody shots were shot between 45-55mm or portraits were 70-100mm for example.

 

I find Harrison Cameras, Ffordes and MPB excellent in the UK for used stuff. You should be WELL under £500!

That's such useful advice - thank you Mike! I must say I have been thinking about a Prime for some time now and will likely look for something around 50mm but will definitely take a look at my previous shots to see where I tend to shoot.

 

Looks like I will probably look at the 18-70mm and the 70-200mm, or possibly the 16-85mm you recommend to avoid a lack of overlap. I think I just wanted reassurance that the was something to be gained by avoiding a Superzoom - I'd hate to get rid of my Tamron 18-270mm and find exactly the same problems with a replacement Nikon 18-200 or similar if it's just a common trait to superzooms!

 

Thank you so much again

I'm another "no superzooms!" preacher. - If you really need a lot of zoom range at your hand; go for a 2nd body. I suppose the D3#00 line takes pictures too and seems affordable.

Upon zooms: For Nikon there is DxO's lens data base. They don't test AF performance but the rest pretty well.

For my own needs I usually stick to kit (expansion) zooms and half decent primes. A pair of stabilized budged zooms and an unspectacular used 2nd body tends to be cheaper than a superzoom on the same main camera.

Not sure what to say about overlap. - Some people live with a gap others can't. What annoys me are zoom ranges not suiting my project; i.e. if I want to shoot a person, I'd love to do that job with a single zoom instead of 2, especially if I have only one camera.

Zooms seem to wear out over time, so investing a lot into them seems a bad idea, if you can't re-earn that money in a timely fashion, to replace your lenses when needed.

I have and shoot with a 18-140 as my GP lens. It is a GREAT lens, but optically, not at pro level.

Keeping the zoom range shorter, makes it easier to deliver better optics. Hence the 18-140 over the 18-200 and 18-300. But technology keeps advancing, and these superzooms are getting better. Even the 18-140 is a sci-fi lens when viewed from the perspective of yesteryear.

As a single lens setup it is great. I love not have to switch lenses so much, like I did in the film days. So I would go on vacation with just this lens.

 

I think the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 is the replacement of the old 18-70.

I would not get an 18-70, except at a real bargain of a deal. The 18-70 does not have VR, and I don't know how its optics will stand up on a 24MP camera. It was the standard lens on the 6MP D70, about 2004. Although DXOmark ranks it similar to the 16-85 for sharpness.

 

A high end alternate is the 16-80 f/2.8-4. A GOOD but pro pricey lens, and faster than the 18-140 or other f/3.5-5.6 standard zooms.

IMHO, one of the big benefits of this lens is the speed, compared to a f/3.5-5.6 standard zoom. If you shoot in lower light, big benefit.

 

If you want PRO quality (and price), then the 17-55 f/2.8 is the lens.

 

It would be a tough choice which way I would go, if I started again. I have learned to like the reach of the 18-140. But the slow lens hurts when the sun goes down.

So, I would probably go with the 16-80 f/2.8-4.

 

Nikon (nor anyone else) does not make a DX version of the FX 70-200, which would be approximately 45-135.

The 55-200 f/4-5.6 is a relatively slow variable aperture consumer grade lens with decent specs. But it would be great if it were at least a stop faster at f/2.8-4. The need for speed depends on the light level you shoot in. Outside in the sun, f/5.6 is not a problem, night under lights . . . not good.

The Nikon FX 70-200 is a GREAT lens, with great specs . . . well it is a pro lens. I have the f/4 version, half the weight and half the cost of the f/2.8 lens.

My question is: would the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR II be a good lens that would then cover the whole focal range, rather than having to have a separate 18-70mm and 70mm - 200mm lens?

The 18-200mm is an excellent lens. It would be my choice at any time over the inconvenience of multiple shorter consumer zoom lenses for general purpose use. It is more than good enough for real estate. You do want to pair it with a super wide angle though - such as the 10-24mm you mentioned - for real estate photography. There will be perspective distortion and this can be easily corrected with Photoshop's Perspective Warp. I shot the last house with a similar configuration. Other realtors have asked me to shoot houses for them and there has not been a need to use more than two lenses. You can get fussy with portrait photography but I also believe the 18-200 can handle it pretty well, just choose your background carefully so it looks nice and not cluttered.

 

Food photography (for advertising?) can be tricky - as you need to make the food look appetizing. I believe the 18-200 is good enough for it as well, as technique is more important than equipment for this type of photography. Good luck.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Mary Doo

If you want a DX lens to cover the 70-200mm range, there's 2 options: the older Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 or the newer Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 OS. Both are only available used now. The former is quite inexpensive, the later quite rare but optically excellent.

I'd hate to get rid of my Tamron 18-270mm and find exactly the same problems with a replacement Nikon 18-200 or similar if it's just a common trait to superzooms!

 

The Tamron 18-270 has a reasonable reputation for what it is, so I doubt if the Nikon 18-200 would actually be a step forward. It is good for a convenience lens, but it's optically challenged (and sorry, but certainly not excellent). So, yeah, split the range in multiple lenses.

 

In the past, I had thr 16-85VR (replaced a 18-70 for me), and found it very good for landscapes. The range is very useful, and in terms of performance, it's certainly a step up from the older 18-70. The one downside of the lens is its slow aperture, which may or may not bug you for portraits.

For the longer lenses, I'd first check with your 18-270 how often you use those, and then decide if you need one, and if yes, how much to spend on it - and especially if you need f/2.8 lenses (which drives up size, weight and price). The 70-200 f/4VR or the latest FX 70-300 f/3.5-5.6VR are excellent lenses, and if you don't need the wide apertures, a lot easier on the wallet and shoulder muscles.

 

A lens that I would consider for food photos using a DX body is the relatively inexpensive 40mm f/2.8DX macro.

I agree with much of the above, but I'm not a fan of Nikon's 18-70mm lens for current DSLRs. It was produced at a time when Nikon's best cameras had 6, 10 or 12MP sensors. Nikon's current DX bodies have 20 or 24 MP, and will produce better results with better or more recent lenses. The 16-85mm VR that Wouter mentioned is much nicer and significantly wider than the 18-70mm, as 2mm makes a real difference at the wide end. You could also consider either Tamron's or Sigma's 17-50mm offerings. I have the Tamron 17-50mm, and it's a lovely lens. I once owned both it and Nikon's excellent 17-55mm, and sold the Nikon, as the Tamron gave me essentially the same level of performance in a much lighter lens. Don't worry about a "gap" between 50 and 70mm.

The 18-70 Nikkor is a fantastic lens, I've made many 16x20's with it. The Nikon 70-210 AF-D is a sleeper, it might not have the best construction but will give you images that you couldn't tell apart from the gold ring versions (just not wide open). Since it is a full frame lens you'll be using the sweet spot, and they are cheap.Forget aftermarket, stick with Nikon. If you shoot children, flowers, sports or subjects that don't require edge sharpness than the long range zooms will work for you.

Belatedly... I'd blotted out that there even was an 18-70. Is there a reason (other than the 15mm gap) not just to get an 18-55? They're newer, smaller, and optically better, and available with VR.

 

I'd pair that with either:

• A 70-200 f/2.8 (possibly mk1 since you won't care about the 200mm FX corners, which might make it affordable) if you want portrait background separation (or you could just get an 85mm prime) and flexibility for sports and events (not, I know, in your stated remit) - but it's a big, heavy lens
  
• A 70-200 f/4, which is smaller and optically very good
  
• A 70-300 VR (new FX version), which is reputedly optically very good across the range if a bit slower at the long end, or
  
• A 70-300 DX VR, which is a lot cheaper and slightly optically worse than the FX version.
  

HOWEVER, while the last two are bargain options, they won't work properly on a D5200, because they're AF-P. I mention them because updating the camera might cost less than putting the more expensive lens on the old one - especially if you might want an 18-55 anyway and given the recent D3500 announcement (though the D5200 has advantages over that body). Mind out that some are bundled with the non-VR version of the 70-300 (at minimal discount), which may be a false economy.

 

All this assumes you need 200mm. The shorter range zooms (16-8x and 18-1xx) tend to behave better than lenses that have to handle more than 10x zoom.

 

Good luck with whatever you get.