D300 - Which Lens for All Around?

[richard_turner1]

<p>Larry, sorry if i offended, it made me smile when i wrote it, so it had to stay, he he, 'hyperbole' good word, never heard it before and looked it up. I agree with you if the motive was to make money but for your average Joe, the 18-200 is ample, esp when your on a budget, the pic by Matt is living proof. The wonderfull people who generally answer the questions in here, like yourself are usally people who are worth thier salt and been at it for years and know everythung there is to know but i think they sometimes forget what it's like for a beginer, we haven't had the time and the money to gather a selection of quality glass and require something that covers most things untill we work out exactly what we want to poke our camera at and no other lens in the world covers that like the good old 18-200mm. You might not get on the cover of vogue with it but until you work out exactly what direction your heading in, it's great.</p>

[isaac_hopkins]

<p>I use a D80, and I generally carry two lenses with me. the 35/2 and the 18-200, for pretty much the same situations. If you want to shoot basketball you will probably need something faster than the 18-200, and longer than the 35/2 the 105, may work, though it could be a touch too long. depends on how close you want to get I guess. </p>

<p>I'm curious what made you choose the D300. given that you seem to suggest you are strictly amateur, I'd recomend the D90 with the 18-200mm. should be about the same as the D300. <br>

I haven't found any substantial differences between my D80 and the D300 when I've borrowed one. </p>

<p>In good light, and if you are willing to accept the minor limitations, the 18-200 is fantastic for an all around lens. </p>

<p>I don't think you will be disappointed whichever way you go.</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>that was an excellent capture by matt. just take note, jeff that the direction of the subject is at an angle closer towards matt. that will be a different story if the dog was more going left to right, or r to l. of course the d300 they say will compensate more for the limitations of the 18-200mm. whatever it is you get, just have fun and enjoy your kids.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>My vote goes for the 18-200. The IQ is exceptional considering the range it covers. It is a little slow but this is neatly countered by the VR. If I could only have one lens, it would be this one.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hmmm... I'm pretty sure, Ramon, that I've got a going right-to-left dog action shot using the 18-200 around here some place. Let's see...</p><div></div>

[larrybc]

<p>Richard Turner , Jan 07, 2009; 07:35 p.m.<br /><br />> Larry, sorry if i offended, it made me smile when i wrote<br /><br />No need for an apology but thank you.<br /><br />> The wonderfull people who generally answer<br />> the questions in here, like yourself are usally people who<br />> are worth thier salt and been at it for years and know<br />> everythung there is to know but i think they sometimes<br />> forget what it's like for a beginer, <br /><br />I agree that it's easy to lose sight of beginner's needs but speaking for myself, I've been quite well aware of that, lately. I just finished helping my wife's friend choose a DSLR + lens kit for her husband who has been wanting a DSLR for a long time. (In his case, I recommended the D80 and 18-70/3.5-4.5.)<br /><br />> we haven't had the time<br />> and the money to gather a selection of quality glass and<br />> require something that covers most things untill we work out<br />> exactly what we want to poke our camera at and no other lens<br />> in the world covers that like the good old 18-200mm. You<br />> might not get on the cover of vogue with it but until you<br />> work out exactly what direction your heading in, it's great.<br /><br />I definitely can't argue against its versatility. I've gotten good shots with it, too, even at the long end. But the keeper rate from that long end was noticeably lower than shots from the wide end. <br /><br />For the OP's purposes, I'd be inclined to get a Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-AF-S version) and team it up with a Nikkor 70-300VR for the long end (for field sports). I think that'd be close to the price of the 18-200VR lens (at least here in Canada it would be).<br /><br />larsbc</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The D90 will not meter in any fashion with AI or AIS glass that the OP already has. (Same for D80, and any of the consumer grade Nikon DSLRs.) If used with the D90, one either has to use a hand held meter or take practice shots and then look at the histogram and guess at the exposure on the LCD display. Been there and done that with my D70s. It's a royal PITA. I have several old manual Nikkors, and I was not about to let loose of them for the pittance one can sell them for. So, I now have the D300, and I am happy as a clam to mount a manual 105mm F4 Micro Nikkor and others. On a dx body, those old lenses still shine. One can even get matrix metering with these venerable lenses on the D300.<br>

I would say to the OP that if you opt for one of the less expensive cameras, like the otherwise fine D90, you will almost never use your old glass. In essence, you'll be starting from scratch. Oh, I would put in a vote for the 18-70dx kit lens. While it is not fast, the D300 is with its ISO capabilties. Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett's sites are good resouces for comprehensive evaluations of the Nikon lenses. Whatever you get, you will be amazed at the improvement over what you did with your old FM and film.</p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>very nice shot, matt. i stand corrected.</p>

[jphotog]

<p>I agree with Graham Thompson. Get a D90 (which is in many ways better (expecially high ISO) than the older D300 except shooting rate and toughness) and spend more on glass! Most people mean a wide aperture when they talk about speed, but you need not to forget the focusing speed if you want to shoot sports. I believe you may be quite disappointed of all the blurry pictures and lost opportunities by shooting with the 18-200mm lens. For sports, I suggest the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or why not the 80-200 f/2.8. For a carry around you may consider the AF-S 24-70mm or even a prime 50mm. I use the f/1.4, which I find a lot more useful than the f/1.8, but there is a price difference. My favourite lens for my style of photography is the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 (even better with FX).</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>focusing speed</em><br /><br />As someone who uses both the 18-200 and the 70-200/2.8, Jonas, I can assure you that the differences in the AF-S focusing speeds in those two lenses are present, but not very significant. Not <em>nearly</em> as significant (in terms of shooting sports) as the difference between the focusing systems in the D300 vs. the D90. The D300's greater number of cross sensor AF points, and better ability to track moving subjects in complex scenes will play a very big role in creating in-focus sports shots (compared to the D90), no matter what lens is in use. The higher frame rate sure helps, too.<br /><br />In light that would let you use the 18-200 at, say, 150mm and f/5.6 <em>or</em> the 70-200 at the same focal length and aperture ... I'd say that you'd have difficulty telling the difference between them in terms of focusing speed, and would be impressed at how well the 18-200 holds up in terms of image quality. <br /><br />A reminder, too, that the 80-200/2.8 D (the one that's currently being sold by Nikon) is NOT an AF-S lens. The camera's built in screw-drive motor has to operate its focus. On a D90, that will NOT be as fast to focus as an AF-S lens (<em>any</em> AF-S lens). If you can find an older 80-200/2.8 AF-S (which, in good shape cost around $1000) that's worth thinking about ... but then you're getting close to the cost of the 70-200 VR anyway. </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>The 'older' D300 has been out just over a year now so it is hardly consider old. The D90 would be a fine choice for everyday use as well as most landscape stuff. However, it just can't compete with the D300 for faster action like sports due to the lower fps and limited AF.</p>

<p>Jeff, I have used the 18-200 with a D300 for over a year now. As a versatile walkaround lens, it is excellent and VR is very worthwhile. As for distortion, all of these consumer type lenses around the same focal length have some but it is easily fixed in processing. Really, a non-issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I believe you may be quite disappointed of all the blurry pictures and lost opportunities by shooting with the 18-200mm lens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what this means. I think Matt showed that this lens produces some pretty nice sharp photos. FWIW, I'll add another shot at 200mm. I don't think I could have gotten the eye any sharper even if I had used my 300mm f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Lost opportunities? On the contrary, one of the greatest benefits of this lens is being able to go from wide angle to tele with a simple twist of the focal length ring. There have been many times, especially when traveling, that I would take one shot at 18mm followed by another at 200mm. The real 'lost opportunities' occur when you have to change lenses.</p>

<p>As for the comment about using the 18-200 with a pod, it is certainly not considered a heavy lens. On the contrary, one of its nice features is being lightweight. The only time I use a tripod with this lens is for long exposures like some landscape shots.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is certainly not the first choice for sports or other action because it is slow on the long end but I can say it performs much better on the D300 than it did on my D80. Since action requires a fast shutter speed, you will probably find this lens too slow for indoor sports.</p>

<p>Every lens has a compromise. Sometimes it is focal length, other times it may be size, weight, cost, or aperture. This is all about tradeoffs and selecting the best lenses you can afford given the limitations. </p>

<div></div>

[kevin cassar]

<p>I agree with the ones who suggested the 18-200 VR lens. I have a D200 and almost never take this lens off except in extreme cases when I need macro or a faster lens. I'd also get the 50 mm 1.8 as I think it would be ideal for indoor sports such as basketball. I have used the D200 with the 50mm 1.8 for indoor volleyball with good results. If you need to see samples of photos taken with these two lenses send me a message and I'll give you the link to my site.</p><div></div>

[wentbackward]

<p>35/2 if you liked a 50 on an FM. The 18-200 seems tempting, good thing is you can get quite a good price for it s/hand if you buy one, coz you'll probably want to sell it quite shortly after!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Dare I annoy people with more linking? Out on the same walk one afternoon with just the 18-200, these two shots: <a href="../photo/6868344&size=lg"><strong>all the way out at the 200mm long end</strong></a>, and then just a little while later, <strong><a href="../photo/6692079&size=lg">all the way back at the 18mm end</a></strong>. Neither shot is remarkable, and both could be better, with a lens more specifically suited to each shot. But not a <em>lot </em>better, and no extra payload, no lens changes etc. And I would have been a LOT more conspicuous taking that 200mm shot if I'd had the 70-200 mounted. It came along on that trip, and I did use it - but only when I set out <em>to</em> use it. Hoofing it all day and just shooting what I came across... the 18-200 was a gem. <br /><br /><em>you'll probably want to sell it quite shortly after<br /></em><br />Nah. As long as I have a DX body - even as just a backup - that lens will be in the bag as an all purpose tool, and as a backup in case another lens gets damaged or somehow fails. I've got much nicer lenses, but still use this one all the time.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>Haha, Matt I think we had this conversation on another thread before! One thing I liked about the 18-200 was how close you can focus as the long end compared to the 80-200. I have a 28-100 3.5/5.6 which is great! Just a little lump of plastic that cost be about $25 s/hand. Weighs nothing, distortion is easy to correct, less CA and sharper than the 18-200, but doesn't have the range esp on the DX.</p>

[jbm]

<p>This is an interesting question, and one that has never been debated on photo.net.<br /> Seriously, this is a thread that comes up every 5 weeks or so, maybe more often. With the same discussions. And some of the same posters. There are a number of options detailed above.<br /> However, if you are interested in the discussion but short on time, I can summarize it for you:<br /> 18-200: Very versatile, not too heavy, acceptable image quality.<br /> Some punk says you should learn to shoot with primes.<br /> Some other punk says they've noticed their 18-200 is a little softer than they would like. Then you link to their pictures and the horrible composition outweighs any issues of sharpness.<br /> Many people bring up the 16-85 VR (my walkaround lens, which is great, just don't drop it from 8 feet onto concrete like I did). One of them posts some picture of a random plant that looks pretty good, but is kind of a throwaway picture. They are largely ignored.<br /> Someone else recommmends the 17-55/2.8, despite it being 1300 bucks and roughly the size of a Howitzer.<br /> Another person mentions a prime again. Then the first poster about using primes argues with the most recent poster about primes, generally which old Nikkor is a better walkaround with various Sigma epithets being dropped about quality control. Then one of them mentions the other one's grandmother...a classless but effective move. They begin a feud online that ends with them finding each other offline and a duel to the death, usually with swords, but one time with rocks. That was a bloody one.<br /> Someone else mentions the Tamron 17-50 or 55/2.8 zoom as being cheaper than Nikon but tack sharp. Another poster, originally in favor of primes, skewers him saying the build quality is not as good as a Nikkor. This does two things: reveals him as a Nikon snot, <em>but also shows he uses zooms. </em> Ha! He slums it like the rest of us.<br /> Matt Laur posts photos taken with his 18-200. They are darned good, which should end any discussion. Especially the black and white one of the guy sitting at the cafe, which should be enough to quell anyone from thinking film still has a place in a digital world (disclaimer, I am actively shooting film and therefore immune to flames generated by this sentence).<br /> Some smarty talks about the good old film days and how he recalls his great grandfather made great pictures with Zeica Contaflexita 50/1.4 in the snow and brutal weather. He mentions that you might be able to get an adapter for that lens for your newfangled Nikon and the lens is often on ebay for not much more than 8 or 9 grand. It might need an overhaul, though.<br /> I post a smartass reply roughly two thirds the way through the debate, procrastinating cleaning before I go to work. This pisses off my wife, who does too much yoga.<br /> A few people recommend you carry two lenses, no one can do the job, which ignores your basic question. Usually they recommend two mediocre zooms.<br /> A hedge fund guy who takes fantastically poo-poo pictures says spend your money on real glass with an air of authority. You link to his profile and he has snaphots taken with a $10,000 rig that approach chimpanzee quality, but actually are quite sharp. This was more common when the Dow was above 10,000.<br /> The OP states the 18-200 seems like the right choice (and is probably correct) and decides to buy it. He will eventually take the place of the first respondant and, as he progresses, perhaps take the place of one of the prime junkies.<br /> The cycle continues.<br /> I hope this helps, or at least provides a little levity.<br /> Cheers,<br /> Jay<br /> PS: You can take a look at some of the photos in my gallery, many with the 16-85 VR. For a not outrageous price, you can go pretty wide, it is tack, tack sharp (stopped down one stop) with great colors. I have never used the Nikon 18-200 for a considerable time except to shoot in a store. I used a Tamron 18-200 on my Canon--back in those dark, sad days--and the image quality was not so great. However, I was in Africa so the subjects were great and the photos are still some of my favorites.</p><div></div>

[larrybc]

<p>Bruce Margolis wrote: "I think Matt showed that this lens produces some pretty nice sharp photos. "<br>

That's debatable due to the size of the posted images. It definitely depends on how large a print you intend on making; how much cropping room you'd like to have; and your own expectations of sharpness.<br>

No offense intended to Matt, btw. They are nice pics but on the topic of whether they're useful for determing the quality of the lens, I'm skeptical. </p>

[garan_wallick]

<p>I have a D90, 50 f/1.8, 18-200VR, SB600 and 800 (for off-camera use on occasion) and I rarely find myself wanting anything else (well, Ok I'm ALWAYS wanting something else, but you understand). I would personally recommend the D90 and save the money for lenses or flashes. But that's just my two cents, and many photographer friends others agree with me. Of course, the D300 is only about $500-700 more than the D90, so maybe it's worth it. I find myself missing some of the extra buttons on the D300, but I'm waiting to save up for a D700 or maybe a successor to the D300 if it's in my price range and what I'm needing at the time. <br>

Enough rambling...bottom line...the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR is the BEST walk-around lens money can buy. Mind you, it won't produce pro results all the time, and it isn't the best in low light, but that's not what you're looking for. When an 18-200 2.8 comes out, I'll be all over that, as will the rest of the photographer community! Thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><strong><em>Breaking news!</em></strong> I was out running an errand just now. I try to never leave the house without a camera (you never know what than Gen-u-ine Poolitzer Moment will occur). OK, so this <em>wasn't</em> one of those moments... but it's an interesting example. Background: some local gang-bangers (ah, MS-13, that noble civic organization - find a chapter near you!) were screaming around a mall parking lot in a stolen SUV. Hey, all I wanted was a cup of coffee. What I got was quite a show. They rolled the truck and ran for it. Sorry I wasn't shooting for <em>that</em> part of the show.<br /><br />Never the less, grabbed the D200 w/ 18-200 out of the car. Yes, that's the only lens I had along since it goes in the little bag with laptop, etc., and I practice what I preach (see above thread!).<br /><br />Here's the scene, from my vehicle door, full frame at 200mm:</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>And here's a crop of the scene - the sort of file I might pass along to the local newspaper for fun.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>And for the pixel-peeping hand-wringers, here's the 100% crop. YES it would have looked better if I could have been closer (not an option) or if I'd had my 70-200/2.8 along (which I didn't - see above thread re: convenience!). </p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Mind you, if I wasn't in a rush to get the vehicle in mid-air as they were tipping it back over, I'd have probably gotten a sharper, more carefully handled shot. I absolutely, positively would have missed that moment if I'd had to change lenses. That's what the 18-200 is all about. </p>

[rich_evans]

<p>re: Jay's response: ROTFLMAO! Well said - are you sure you're not a moderator here Jay?</p>

<p>I cast another vote for the much maligned (in some circles) 18-200 VR. I have an entire stable of pro gear availble to me for my paying gigs, but when I'm just out and about, you'll find me (apparently like Matt) with the 18-200 stuck on either a D40 or a D200.</p>

<p>While some of the glass referenced by other posters is very nice, its not what I generally recommend for someone like the OP who clearly states he is a hobbyist and is looking for a walk-aound, multi-purpose lens. Learn to use all the focal lengths available to you in a nice lightweight package before you decide to jump into much heavier fast glass. The results on the type of images you're taking are not going to be noticeable. --Rich</p>

[richard_turner1]

<p>'They are nice pics but on the topic of whether they're useful for determing the quality of the lens, I'm skeptical'.<br>

Larry, you smoking crack? His and other peoples pics in this thread's are excellent and a benchmark for the quality of the lens, i may have to bring 'anal' back in to this thread.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yeah, Jay seems to know us all <em>much</em> too well!<br /><br />I'm going to need to start using a different screen name, and start linking to different sample pictures! Or, I shall pass the <strong>Golden 18-200 Defender Baton</strong> off to some of these other fine folks (who carry it so well!). I think I'll just do Sigma 30/1.4 pro bono defense work for the rest of the month.</p>