Nikkor 18-200/D300 or Tammy 28-300/D700

[vincent_p]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I've read <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SzJr">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SzJr</a>,<br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00P8oW">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00P8oW</a>, <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00O5q5">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O5q5</a>, and <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00N5Yn">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00N5Yn</a> (Lil's comparison does help a lot - thanks a bunch Lil !)<br>

I am considering the 18-200 for general/travel/hike - as such very reluctant to carry 2 lenses as some situations do not quite permit me to change lenses. I have summarised it as follows:<br>

D300 + 18-200 VR combi:<br>

1. Lightweight, compared to the D700 combi<br>

2. A Nikkor should give me a better resale value than the Tammy<br>

-but can't quite use on FX....thus it can only stay on my D300.<br>

D700 + 28-300 VC combi:<br>

1. Better high ISO but heavier<br>

2. Has "macro"<br>

I think I will still keep this D300 for sometime. When shooting for clients, I normally use the 24-70 on my D700 with the 70-200 on my D300, so I do not forsee using 18-200 nor 28-300 for anything other than what I mentioned above. I do have the 24-85 f3.5 which gives me pretty good pics but is too short for travel on the D700 and sometimes too narrow on D300.<br>

Shun did mention not to get anything less than 5.6 due to Nikon autofocus inconsistency issues. (Maybe you could elaborate more?)<br>

Someone did suggest a possible option of using the Nikkor 16-85 f3.5 and crop for the longer end as it is sharper than the 18-200?</p>

<p>Appreciate your thots. Are there other options I should consider? I don't mind if the reach is slightly shorter if the IQ can be much better (24-120's IQ doesn't quite cut it either). I know I will not get 24-70/70-200 IQ on superzooms. I thot of getting a used 28-200 but it was too pricey here.</p>

<p>As such I'll probably get this 18-200. A friend said I'm crazy buying a DX lens since all my lenses are already FX. Am I missing something here?<br>

Many thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[dpbours]

<p>You're not crazy, you just accept the fact that this lens will only be used on your D300. If you will be using this combination for a while, there is nothing wrong with that.<br>

Camera-wise, I do prefer the D700 over the D300 wrt noise and high iso performance. But if you need the 200mm x 1.5 crop like you get on the D300, then that's your choice.</p>

<p>You say that changing lenses in the places you go is not an option. I had the D200 with the 18-200 in the past. Great combination, but at some point, it become evident that the 18-200 is not a pro lens and dust will get through.I'm then talking about sandstorms in Sudan...</p>

<p>The 28-300 on a D700... No experience with that lens. But with the wider the zoom range, sharpness, distortion and CA's will not get any better. I also feel that the D700 demands better glass than a D300...It surely is less forgiving.<br>

Lenses that were razorsharp on my D200 are now adequate but not stellar on my D700...</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Vincent,<br>

Tamron 18-270VC for DX and 28-300VC for FX are very capable lenses, awarded as best travel lens in last year. I have the first and a friend of mine have the second... It fully deserves every penny ang gives a unique versatility when travelling. The image quality is far superior than I expected and no real problem with f6.3 except in low light... But for low light you can keep with you a 35/1.8 or a 50/1.4 as I do and you are fully covered for most situations. The VC of Tamron is unbelievable good... I am more pleased with this zoom than with 18-200 that rest on my shelve since I've bought Tammy.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>How big do you print? If not real big, you probably are not spending your money most wisely getting FX.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't think it makes any sense to buy a D700 and mainly use a 28-300mm super zoom on it.</p>

<p>Nikon's AF system is designed to work with AF lenses that are f5.6 or faster. That is why there is no Nikon AF lens that is slower than f5.6. I have reached f6.3 and f8 by adding 1.7x and 2x TCs onto f4 AF-S lenses, and AF becomes poor on cameras such as the F5, D2X, and D3 unless your subject is under full sunlight. In the shadows and indoors, you are going to have a lot of problems.</p>

<p>If you intend to get a super zoom for its convenience for casual and travel photography, I'd get Nikon's 18-200mm. It is a decent but not great lens. I have used one quite a bit because photo.net got a loaner from Nikon, but I am not interested in getting one myself. For that purpose I think the D300/D300S is a bit of an overkill. If you are intersted in light-weight travel, a D90 + 18-200 AF-S VR should be a fine combo.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>DX is very useful. I have a D200 and it is all the camera I need for many years to come. FX is important if you shoot weddings or events, but for a travel and family camera, it's overkill and not as convenient.</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>Thank you all for your kind replies.<br>

Dennis - yes, I do prefer the D700 too but in this instance, I'm also trying to reduce weight as my next major trip, I'll be tracking Annapurna and every bit counts. So it's a weight-vs-right gear struggle. And I surely do not want to end up in anything like a sand storm...hahaha. Yes, I agree with you that the FF is more damanding on lenses, which is also why my reluctance. Thanks for your assurance.</p>

<p>Mihai - yes, I read Bob Atkins review and that's why I was open to this 28-300. However, the versatility is about equalled by the 18-200 on a DX in terms of range. But Lil's review/samples shows that the 18-200 is marginally better. I read in other blog/forums, that some users said that they were happy with theirs whilst others were not. I guess we all have different expectations. Lil's samples were not bad but the samples I saw on pbase were rather disappointing - maybe I didn't look hard enough.</p>

<p>Peter - yes you are right - for travel, I do not expect to print large. I bought my FX due to client requirements and still use it for client shoots. (But I have sold some of my travel shots in the past even though they weren't FX - but those weren't on a all-in-one lens either. )</p>

<p>Shun - I agree with what you said - if I do get the 28-300, it's just occasional use as the 24-70 stays on mostly. Thus I'm reluctant to get the Tammy. And with the AF limitation, all the more I should not get it. Many thanks for your clarification. Appreciate it.<br>

However, since I already have the D300, it's no point in buying a D90 now just for that.</p>

<p>Stephen - noted with thanks. Yes, I'm thinking D300 is good enough for travel. Thus far, I do think it's an amazing camera with great features.</p>

<p> Thank you all once again. Looks like 18-200 it is !</p>