D300 - Which Lens for All Around?

[morophaenixmau]

<p>What can I say? Also for me, the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII lens, is a great travel's partner with D300! light, easy to use, not too much expensive, with good performaces, always ready in every occasion, also for an unexpected portrait, also for a lover's portrait like I am! I love a lot travels:...this lens, I repet, it's a wonderful friend in my...to wander about, and I reccomend it for D300!...Ciaomau!</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Without doubt the Nikkor 18-200mm VR - it will cover most of what you want to shoot with very good results, once you are into photography in a big way then look at more specialist lenses. With the D300 and 18-200 you will learn about the camera, lens and photography in general and you may never want another lens or body. I would forget about the legacy lenses unless you still have the FM.</p>

[hal_edmonds]

<p>Go with the 18-200 it's one hell of a lens... Hal</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Matt, when you look up the 18-200 on Nikon's web page, they really should have a shot of you with your camera and lens:-)!.............nice examples today BTW!<br>

Dick</p>

[larrybc]

<p>Richard Turner , Jan 08, 2009; 02:29 p.m. wrote: <br /><br />> > 'They are nice pics but on the topic of whether they're useful for determing <br />> > the quality of the lens, I'm skeptical'. <br />> Larry, you smoking crack? His and other peoples pics in this thread's are <br />> excellent and a benchmark for the quality of the lens, i may have to bring 'anal' <br />> back in to this thread. <br /><br />Richard, it'd be nice if you could leave the personal attacks out of these exchanges. While I don't think it's necessary to view 100% crops (after all, it depends on what your output goals are, and your expectations of what constitutes good image quality), I do think that Matt's earlier pics are too small to illustrate how sharp a lens is. My Canon A610 P&S produces nice, sharp images at those sizes, too. In fact, that was pretty much the point that Michael Reichmann was making over at Luminous Landscape when he talked about how his photographer friends couldn't easily distinguish the difference between a print produced from a Canon G10 P&S and one produced by a MF digital back. <br /><br />As an image gets smaller, it's harder to discern differences between camera sensors, let alone lenses, as far as sharpness is concerned. I simply think that Matt's earlier samples weren't that useful for evaluating the 18-200's sharpness at 200mm. <br /><br />If you think it makes sense to judge a lens' sharpness based on 700px downsized samples, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Matt Laur , Jan 08, 2009; 01:41 p.m. wrote: <br />> And for the pixel-peeping hand-wringers, here's the 100% crop. YES it <br />> would have looked better if I could have been closer (not an option) or <br />> if I'd had my 70-200/2.8 along (which I didn't - see above thread re: <br />> convenience!). <br /><br />Matt, trust me, I'm not "wringing my hands" about the 18-200VR. I gave it over a year of use and decided that it didn't make sense for me to keep using a lens that didn't suit my needs. Instead of complaining about it and keeping it, I sold it and bought a 16-85VR instead. I certainly don't regret the money I spent on it. It was the only way I could find out if I'd like the lens, and I really wanted to like it because it was extremely convenient. <br>

But I don't see why my opinion of the lens should be any less valid than yours. I stated my experiences as well as the fact that we all have different expections, etc. Some people like it, some don't. Nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />> It's not a masterpiece, but for a quick-draw shot, the 18-200's 200 isn't <br />> horrible. <br /><br />It looks good to me. And for the record, I never said the 18-200 was horrible. I just found mine to be soft at the 200mm end. And over the long haul, I found the keeper ratio at the long <br />end to be unsatisfactory for me.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<blockquote>

<p>"In fact, that was pretty much the point that Michael Reichmann was making over at Luminous Landscape when he talked about how his photographer friends couldn't easily distinguish the difference between a print produced from a Canon G10 P&S and one produced by a MF digital back."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Larry, to be fair it should be pointed out that Reichmann compared those two by examining photos that were 13 x 19. That's hardly a small print comparison.</p>

<p>OTOH, it is also fair to say that the reduced JPEG's on this site don't give a great deal of info. Nevertheless, it is the only way that information can be conveyed visually. I think most would agree that if the tiny size of the JPEG's here are poor, one can imagine how bad they would look at full size, much less 13 x 19.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear the 18-200 didn't work out for you but for Matt, me, and the others, it turned out to be a winner. </p>

 

[bruce_margolis]

<blockquote>

<p>"In fact, that was pretty much the point that Michael Reichmann was making over at Luminous Landscape when he talked about how his photographer friends couldn't easily distinguish the difference between a print produced from a Canon G10 P&S and one produced by a MF digital back."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Larry, to be fair it should be pointed out that Reichmann compared those two by examining photos that were 13 x 19. That's hardly a small print comparison.</p>

<p>OTOH, it is also fair to say that the reduced JPEG's on this site don't give a great deal of info. Nevertheless, it is the only way that information can be conveyed visually. I think most would agree that if the tiny size of the JPEG's here are poor, one can imagine how bad they would look at full size, much less 13 x 19.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear the 18-200 didn't work out for you but for Matt, me, and the others, it turned out to be a winner. </p>

 

[rarmstrong]

<p>Larry, just what personal attacks are you referring to? Matt was making light about being a spokesman for the 18-200 VR and I was just following up on his comment. Lighten up, man!<br>

With all due respect!<br>

Dick</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Actually, Larry, I wasn't even thinking of you as one of the hand-wringing crew - you've already arrived at your own impression of the lens, through personal experience. And of course you're right that there's plenty you can't really tell about what a lens is doing when you're only looking at a quarter of the resolution.<br /><br />The pixel peepers are, generally, the ones who have never used a lens, and are trying to satisfy themselves about their own (other) choices/thoughts by comparison. The main point is that you've <em>found </em>(rather than inferred) what you need to know about that lens by touching it yourself. I just jump into these little frays because a lot of people who have <em>not</em> ever used the lens sure seem ready to trash it. </p>

[newbie1]

<p>Nikon 18 - 200 VR</p>

<p>and the</p>

<p>Nikon 80-400 VR</p>

<p>I have found that these two lenses meet all of my needs (for now) and are great lenses.<br>

Stay away from the "Grey Market" lenses as they are not that much cheaper and there maybe a Nikon warranty issue on them.</p>

 

[rarmstrong]

<p>James, I have both and although they both have their limitations, they are both excellent lenses and can produce fine results when used while understanding them. The D300 body, with its excellent AF module, also helps. Higher iso settings are also a help because neither of these lenses could be considered "fast".</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>18-200 is the way to go. with the VR and high ISO offered by most DSLR's, the images one can get from this unicorn of a lens, are quite amazing. just the sheer convenience of the range, and the light weight, is a major factor for me. i have a lot of lenses, much "better" ones lying around. at the end of the day, convenience trumps everything. you are not going to get too many good images if you are worn out by carrying a few kilos of glass, regardless of how good they are.</p>

[larrybc]

<p>Bruce Margolis , Jan 08, 2009; 08:04 p.m. wrote:<br /><br />> > "In fact, that was pretty much the point that Michael Reichmann was making over at Luminous <br />> > Landscape when he talked about how his photographer friends couldn't easily distinguish the <br />> > difference between a print produced from a Canon G10 P&S and one produced by a MF digital back."<br />> <br />> Larry, to be fair it should be pointed out that Reichmann compared those two by examining <br />> photos that were 13 x 19. That's hardly a small print comparison.<br /><br />True, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was only trying to point out that size does matter when showing images that are supposed to illustrate a lens' sharpness.<br /><br />> OTOH, it is also fair to say that the reduced JPEG's on this site don't give a great deal of info. <br />> Nevertheless, it is the only way that information can be conveyed visually. I think most would <br />> agree that if the tiny size of the JPEG's here are poor, one can imagine how bad they would look <br />> at full size, much less 13 x 19.<br /><br />Well, you could also post 100% or 75% crops, as Matt has recently done. <br /><br />> Sorry to hear the 18-200 didn't work out for you but for Matt, me, and the others, it turned out to <br />> be a winner. <br /><br />I'm not sore about it. ;-) You never know till you try, right? And I certainly have no problem with you guys espousing your support of that lens. A lot of people like the lens, there's no doubt about that.<br /><br />Richard Armstrong , Jan 08, 2009; 08:05 p.m. wrote:<br />> Larry, just what personal attacks are you referring to? Matt<br />> was making light about being a spokesman for the 18-200 VR<br />> and I was just following up on his comment. Lighten up, man!<br /><br />I was referring to your remark about me being on crack. Of course you were joking but c'mon, do we really need THAT tone for discussion here? That's the kind of retort I expect to see on Dpreview.com, not here. I guess I just expect more from you guys here. That's a compliment. ;-)<br /><br />Matt Laur , Jan 08, 2009; 08:08 p.m. wrote:<br /><br />> Actually, Larry, I wasn't even thinking of you as one of the<br />> hand-wringing crew - you've already arrived at your own<br />> impression of the lens, through personal experience. And of<br />> course you're right that there's plenty you can't really<br />> tell about what a lens is doing when you're only looking at<br />> a quarter of the resolution.<br />> <br />> The pixel peepers are, generally, the ones who have never<br />> used a lens, and are trying to satisfy themselves about<br />> their own (other) choices/thoughts by comparison. The main<br />> point is that you've found (rather than inferred) what you<br />> need to know about that lens by touching it yourself. I just<br />> jump into these little frays because a lot of people who<br />> have not ever used the lens sure seem ready to trash it.<br /><br />Ah, I see. Ok, fair enough. <br /><br /><br /></p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Larry, I am Richard Armstrong, not Richard Turner. I did not make the crack remark which I agree should not be part of a serious discussion. I was making a light comment about Matt's well known affection for the 18-200 which I happen to share. I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding.<br>

Dick</p>

[jaimee_rosko]

<p>I vote for the 18-200mm as well.. I have a d300 with several lenses and the 18-200 is on always unless I switch it for a particular event</p>

[john_liang]

<p>18-200 or Tamron's 18-270. Or better, 80-400 or 200-400 for sports.</p>

[jasminabalic]

<p>Hi there!<br>

I have D300, and 18-135mm lens.....it works good, no complain so far....but, I would still vote for 18-200mm.....I worked with them before, and there is a difference....so if you can choose, try 18-200mm...</p>

[drago_cerovsek1]

<p>16-85 vr is very good lens and no expensive.<br>

TEST<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr</a></p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>I use the 16-85 on my D300 and am very happy with it. You may need to correct distortion using Photoshop if you include buildings or other subjects with straight lines but it is not a hassle. Only occasionally do I feel 85 is a little short (equates to around 135mm full frame) but the resolution of the D300 allows cropping and enlarging quite considerably (for non-comnmercial use).</p>

[david_peterson9]

<p>I have the 18-200 VR which is on my D300 80-90% of the time. It is very convenient and with the DX format gives lots of reach. I took dozens of hand-held pictures in Yellowstone this summer with reasonable results thanks to the VR. <br>

I use a Nikkor 50mm/1.4 for very poorly lighted indoor sports for (family) and crop as needed. I wish that I had the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 which will be my next purchase. If I had to do it again, I would probably buy the 24-70 and a longer prime that would transition to FX when needed.<br>

If you don't do lots of low light or sports photography, the 18-200VR is a great lens.</p>

[marc_henry1]

<p>I have just bought a D700 and the only thing that is even a slight niggle is that I can't really use my 18-200mm VR I have for my D200. I bought the 18-200mm in March 2008 and it was only off my camera when I was using a specific prime for a specific reason. It is a great everyday lens, especially if you want to hand hold in medium / low light.<br>

Of course there are technical disadvantages to using a zoom lens covering such a wide area but I think I was able to take photographs I wouldn't otherwise have been able to.<br>

If your not sure but one second hand for not a lot of money and try it. It is a great lens.</p>

[jacobbuller]

<p>I have an 80-200 as my only lens for my D300, and am saving up for other lenses. But my dad has a D300, and the 18-200 3.5-4.5 VR i think, the one that you can buy with it . It's a pretty good general all around lens, not good in lowlight, but works in good light pretty good. Fast focus. it's nice to have a 18mm, and a 200mm in one small lightweight lens.</p>

[fishit]

<p>Well all around, being the only one for a multi purpose shoot or trip. I would have to say the 18-200mm vr Nikon has served me well is many situations. Not flawless but nice results most times.<br>

It is the lens I keep on the D300 for normal carry around use. I think it comes down to budget and what you expect from the lens. I often have carried my D70 with a 50mm 1.8f lens, since it is light and a bit more compacted than the D300 or D200. I still prefer the 18-200 also do to shaky hands.<br>

Humor.</p>

[southjerseyphotos]

<p>Well There is no Perfect all around lens,Everyone does a little different when taking a picture.I remember taking shots with my moms camera using 120 b&w and getting great shots.My 2cents is to read all comments narrowing it down to lens or two and throw the dice,If you dont like that lens sell it.Sure you will lose some money on the deal but thats part of the game.Good luck in your choice I am sure you will have fun!</p>

[jeff_ackerman]

<p>I just wanted to thank everybody for their input. I received my D300 with the 18-200mm lens and I am very happy with everything. <br>

I am busy reading the manual and watching a DVD that I bought to help me learn the camera. For a newbie I can honestly say that it has been easier to learn than I expected.<br>

Now comes the fun part of learning which settings make for great pictures.<br>

Thanks again for all of the help!<br>

Jeff</p>