Nikon 17-55 vs 18-200 for travel

[joshua_croft]

This continuous discussion of which lens vs. which is getting out of hand! We all can attest that the most expensive Nikon pro glass is going to be the best in most cases, as far as image quality. But here is the big secret..... IN THE LAB!..... Who really cares if after you take a 100 percent crop there is visible noise or artifacts, PLEASE!. Ray, the 18-200 is a wonderful lens with few shortcomings; I got it cheap with my D300 and love it every second. You can’t beat the compact flexibility in a professional (or prosumer....blah blah) quality lens. VR for indoors is awesome, yes it does get you up to 4 stops if you have good form and steady hands! I have used it down to 1/30th and lower with great results. So it vignettes a little, that’s what the photography gods invented Photoshop for. Not as sharp? Again Photoshop cs3 and smart sharpen is wonderful, and everyone uses it, 17-55 or not. IF you aren’t taking professional level portraits on site during your vacation, go with the 18-200. F2.8 for travel? Yeah right, most don’t need it. If you want one lens that is the most versatile, go for the 18-200, you won’t regret it. But in the end, you need to decide what is the best fit for you. Besides, who doesn’t love going to the local camera shop and playing with their gear? Enjoy your vacation Ray!

 

-Josh

[hugh_look]

I've never used the 17-55 so can't comment. However, I've owned the 18-200 and now the 16-85, which I much prefer for 2 reasons: 16mm is definitely wider than 18mm, and I like wideangles; and the image quality is very visibly better. I even had my 18-200 away to Nikon for sorting, and it was still very soft all the way through the range. The 16-85 is quite usable at full aperture for most of its range, although of course sharpens up a stop or two down..

 

My travel kit now consists of the 16-85 for daytime and a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for low light/indoors, and to be honest I don't often find myself wishing for anything else. Neither are particular obtrusive, both are quite robust and reasonably compact, balance nicely on large and small bodies, and allow you to get the best out of 1600 ISO settings handheld if you need the low light coverage. The 1.4 of the Sigma is probably more useful to me than the extra IQ of the 17-55 would be, and it's not a bad lens at all in its own right. I've a few other lenses, but these two account for much of my picture-making. I take both often on work trips where I might get a chance to take photos, so weight/simplicity are important as I've got all the usual laptop, files, overnight bag clutter too.

 

If you want something up to 200mm, then the current version of the 55-200 (with VR) seems optically much better than the 18-200mm and is very light, although rather flimsy construction.

[walterh]

"Hence my recommendation to have that little 50/1.8 in a pocket, just in case." Matt I agree completely - this

lens goes wherever I go. Yet I complain about the cheap plastic design but it sure is light and small with

excellent IQ.

 

BTW: great shots and perfect processing, the colors really come out great - glad to have a calibrated monitor to

appreciate it. Yours and Shuns examples show very well that the most important aspect of lens selection is to

know the intended use. You can buy the most expensive lens with perfect technical data and end up with the wrong

lens for the purpose.

[tim_knight]

Peter, With Nikon catching upto and maybe ahead of Canon on being able to shoot at higher ISO's there is no reason for them not to offer the Nikon consumers f4 lenses. JMO!

[stephen_worth]

I have shot incredible pictures with the 18-200 VR. For an all in one solution, it's the best. In fact, even if I was carrying two

lenses for travel, it would be the 18-200 and the 30mm f1.4 Sigma.

[ilkka_nissila]

Depending on

whether people photography is involved or not, I pack different things.

 

I do some architectural and landscape trips which do not involve people photography. In such a case, a zoom like 16-85 might be a

consideration for extreme lightweight travel. In reality I usually travel with 4-10 kg of camera equipment - if 10kg, I need to rent a car, if 4kg

I am set up for backpacking. A tripod is self-evident for this kind of photography.

 

Then there are cases where I just travel photographing people; this means usually a set of fast primes: 28, 50, 85, 135, and 300 or some

similar kit. No tripod, usually.

 

The tough trips are where I decide to photograph both types of subjects. That's when I need to remember to have my medical insurance

cards with me, in case I collapse under the weight of my gear.

[ifti]

On a three day trip to Blue Ridge I carried all my lenses but only used 18-200. Never felt the need to

change and am happy with my pictures of landscapes, family and foliage.. I don't have 17-55 and no

clue as to what am I missing? What a blessing. Enjoyed my time without worrying about changing

lenses. Unless I want to take low light pictures do I really need a wider lens? I do have a 50mm 1.8 a

bargain but fantastic lens it is not 55mm but darn close.

[jbm]

I think the 16-85 is not the best compromise for travel. Stopped down, it is tack, tack sharp, but you will want to use the tele length to capture things a little further away or for flattering portraits.

 

I went on a South African honeymoon (back in my Canon days) and took a crapola Tamron 18-200 with me. You can click my name and look at all of my wildlife photos and half of my photos of people. All were done with the Tamron, no VR. If I shot at night with really high ISO's, I made them into monochromes after removing the chroma noise first in PS and they look like Ilford really high speed film. Most of the color photos in good light are very, very passable for most uses (and the Nikon will be way better, lightyears, actually). Printed the photos look great...not exceptional like the stuff out of my 16-85 stopped down or a good prime, but there were a lot of shots I would have missed without the range.

 

Mayy Laur is rarely wrong. I agree would take the 18-200 and for another 120 bucks a 50/1.8 for low light and the occasional artistic shot where you want to make use of some bokeh. You'll come back with more photos and no regrets!

 

Of course this is all for giggles, I LOVE my 16-85 for knocking around town and if you get one you'll appreciate the wide end.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

[sim_m]

I think you have to decide what to sacrifice, the quality results of the 17-55 or the all in one 18-200 with

less weight.

[wentbackward]

I'm selling my 18-200! Lots of people like it, but I don't. It leaks dust behind the front element, which has

spoilt many photo's for me. It's easy enough to remove the lens and blow out the dust, but not really feasible

when say, you're in the middle of Mumbai and there's a great sunset. It's not actually 200mm its about 160-170mm.

It starts at f3.5 and rapidly shoots up from there (from 18 - 36mm you have doubled the length), if I remember

correctly it's about f4.5 at 50mm. It does have good contrast and is sharp. VR works well, focus is quick and

quiet, A/M mode is useful and it focuses really close, even fully extended, that's probably the thing I enjoy

most about this lens, Easy to get close ups of the kids (in daylight). Many of my images are of people or involve

movement of some kind so I find this lens

too limiting in anything other than daylight. My lightweight (!?) package is a D300 + a 17-35 f2.8 with the crop

factor it's quite a usable range for travel. the 17-55 should be more versatile. Generally you'll find if you

carry this lens, you'll probably carry an SB600/800 so starts to defeat the point of it.

 

Hope that helps

 

Paul

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"It's not actually 200mm its about 160-170mm."</i><p>

 

Paul, is that at infinity focus? It's not unusual for zooms to lose effective focal length toward minimum focus distance, but that's not how lens designers spec lenses. My 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX is effectively around 50mm at minimum focus, but is pretty close to 70mm at infinity, which is how lenses are designated.

[RaymondC]

Depends really.

 

I really like my 18-200vr a lot of times I use that at home walk and about over my 80-200/2.8. I also have a Sigma 10-20 that might be a 4-5.6. For travel I do daylight photographs, in low light I do it on a tripod and stop it down to f/8.

 

On travel, I find that if you want a truely great photo, its golden light with tripod. Or its afternoon framed v v nicely that draws impact and get a v nice angle and position.

 

If I talk about low light, inside churches etc .. I find those the pictures from mine at least don't turn out v nice, the colors a pretty muted anyway, but if you put me in that spot a 2.8 lens isn't fast enough, I prefer 1.8 1.4 aperture lenses and still I would probably be at ISO 800 or higher.

 

I've never printed out large with the 18-200vr lens, I have used Lightroom and Photoshop and sharpness has not been an issue for me viewing 100%. But I don't do low light handholding... I've used 80-200/4-5.6 and from a club judge was told it was v v sharp, handheld ISO 200, 300'ish shutter speed at f/8 or something. Galen has used that too for his publications. If I was doing some portraiture I would use a prime thou for that fast aperture for limited depth.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

I use the 18-200 whenever I'm shooting for fun, and I dont want to get as lost in the photography as much as the event. As mentioned before, if you spend time analyzing whether or not the 18-200mm VR has the IQ needed, you might just need to work on being a better photographer. Sharpness isnt everything. If you intend to sell prints from vacation photos, then bring the good stuff when warranted. But I guarantee that great pictures are possible with the 18-200... f8 and be there.

[beac]

I'm the first to admit I'm a highly average photographer most of the time (every once in a while I get a nice shot). I own the 18-200 and a 50mm prime and have to force myself to put it on the camera, just because I think it makes me a better photographer to use it. Sure the 18-200 has some issues that piss me off, especially the zoom creep if it is pointed down and set anywhere other than 18mm, but IMHO it cannot be beat for a one lens solution. Plus, by reading this forum, I'm learning where its zoom/f sweet spot is in terms of sharpness. If you want to travel with one lens -- the 18-200 can't be beat I think.

 

All that being said, I'll sell you mine when I scrape up the frogskins to get a D700! Which begs the question: what is the consensus (if any) on the best "one lens" travel light solution for FX?

[rachiddahnoun]

Without a doubt I would go with the 18-200mm. The versatility for traveling is far greater than the 17-55. Ideally I would say get both but that doesn't seem to be possible. For traveling and being on the go the 18-200 is great and the VR helps out in tricky, "borderline" situations. Good luck.

 

Rachid Dahnoun

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>All that being said, I'll sell you mine when I scrape up the frogskins to get a D700! Which begs the question: what is the

consensus (if any) on the best "one lens" travel light solution for FX?</i>

<p>

The 50/1.8 AF-D or if you want something lighter and smaller, how about the 45mm f/2.8 Ai-P.

[bostjanfrelih]

For travel, I'd make compromise and buy 16-85 VR; very sharp lens with VR and 85mm.

[riverfront studio]

I would go with 16-85mm, plus 70-300mm VR combo. Light weight, both VR and both 67mm filter size. I think VR is more effective than a fast lens in most cases.

[rich_evans]

"....Looking to travel light for a short vacation...."

 

I own and use the 18-200 - for precisely what you're looking for: a simple, effective, lightweight lens that covers almost

any situation you may encounter on a getaway. I keep it on my D300 almost all the time when I'm not working just

because it is so versatile. No, its not 'pro' quality build but like Matt, I've had no issues with image quality, even when I

compare it to my 28-70 f/2.8.

 

--Rich

[rarmstrong]

Ray,

 

Take the 18-200 for all of the reasons that Matt pointed out...it really is a great versatile travel lens. Stick a faster prime in your pocket for indoors in lower light and have a good time!

[peter_n1664876959]

Ray, my experience is with film, I'm a complete newbie with respect to dSLR use as I just bought my first dSLR,

but I do know my focal lengths. I shoot street and I like to use DOF effects. I use film rangefinder cameras

and I've found over the years that a 35mm on one body and a 75mm on the other, with a 24mm in the bag covers 100%

of my travel shooting requirements. All of these focal lengths (more-or-less) are covered in one lens with the

17-55.

 

To me f2.8 is really slow but I understand why zoom lenses are so slow. What I don't understand is that so many

posts in this thread trade off lens speed against VR, you just cannot get the figure/ground separation you need

in many cases with an f4 lens - it isn't possible. I would go with the 17-55 for quality reasons if no other.

[fong_mark]

Hi Ray, I am new to this website, just one week old here.

I am not an expect in the technical terms of photography,

but I have used and witness the works of this Nikkor 18-200

from my numerous travelling trips during autumn / winter in Japan,

China, Korea too.

I would say its really an all round versatile lens here.

I have been using Nikkor 18-135 on my first camera Nikon D50

and Nikkor 18-200 on this second Nikon D80, also have a spare

lens of 18-55 which I would carry along for just in case closed up shots.

Good shots, easy to handle, versatile lens, easy manoeuvre, except

doesn't perform well enough during indoors.

To me, in my own thoughts, that 17-55 and 18-200 is also like an

overlapping here except for the length and aperture differences.

I think its worth a risk to try out and see how the results for

learning knowledge.

I am learning too, although been in this hobby for years, but

chances for me to use it is very rare, maybe once or twice a year.

Anyway, good luck and have a great vacation trip, Ray.

[david_peterson9]

Ray - I took my D-300 with 18-200 VR on recent trips to China and Yellowstone and captured many wonderful images. I agree with Joshua and Shun - the 18-200 VR is a great compromise lens; better image quality is not meaningful if you miss the shot, cut short time for proper composition, don't get to that next site becasue of time lost, etc. I wrapped my D-300/18-200 VR in a sweatshirt and went. The VR was wonderful for all the handheld shots, and the lens gave good reach and enough wide angle for a variety of situation. Bang-for-the-buck, this is a great travel lens.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>better image quality is not meaningful if you miss the shot</i>

<p>

How many photographers are there in the world? Do you think that all of those photographers who use better optics

than a 18-200 and visit the same location that you did, will always miss "the shot"? I don't believe that.

Someone sometime will get the shot, using better optics, expose it more carefully, use a tripod, and they may

even compose it better, since they are likely to be in the right position due to their experience. What then is

the lasting value of all those 18-200 shots? Is it just the subjective value of acting as a personal memory, and

reinforcement of that? I'd hate to spend so much time and money on a narcissist effort to document my own life.

To me the purpose of travel isn't to take snapshot quality of things I've seen but to document interesting things

- some of which will hopefully be of interest to a broader audience in the long run. In order to do that I think

the technical standard needs to be high so that it helps rather than hinders the visibility and transfer of the

message of the image.

<p>

My position is that if you always take the easy way to do things, there is a slim chance that the effort will

result in something unique with lasting value. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this. YMMV

[david_peterson9]

Ilkka: For fixed or recurring themes you have a point. For others that are more transitive (e.g. historical events that

unfold and are gone), missing the shot is a very real issue.

 

For stationary/permanently recurring subjects, it's great that some including you are producing "perfect" work that

millions will want haning in their living rooms. Many prefer an average shot taken personally to a "professional" shot

by someone else. I don't think that is narcissism. I prefer to call it personal art - there is value to that experience,

journey and personal history. For those with this or a similar perspective, the 18-200 lens may be a good fit. And

each of us can have different objectives each time we shoot. I carry primes or higher quality lenses when my

objective is different.