D90 + 18-200 or D90 + Tamron 17-50

[jonsjons]

<p>i haven't read all of the posts here, so apologies if someone has already said this....but you should be able to pick up the tamron 17-50 (non-vc version) AND a nikon 55-200 vr for about the same cost as the nikon 18-200 alone. that way you would have the wide end nicely covered and still be able to experiment with longer focal lengths. then if you at some point decide that you need a high quality telephoto, you can always pick up the aforementioned sigma 50-150 or something similar.</p>

[bahrammonshat]

<p>It seems that, except for Eric Arnold who mentioned the Nikkor 16-85mm, the excellent quality of this lens is being overlooked here.<br>

Photozoe, http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr?start=2, suggests that "<strong>the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX is probably still the best DX standard zoom lens in Nikon mount to date</strong> ". I bought this lens and sold my Tamron 17-50mm, the none VC version. Why? Well...because the 16-85 is sharper, built better and, more imprtantly, it functions more consistrently. it is so dependable. There are reasons for the higher price of this lens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>@robert: i have the older, non-VC 17-50, which is supposed to be slightly worse optically than the new one. i havent had any issues with IQ, other than some distortion @ 17mm wide open, and i havent used my nikon kit lens (18-70, which is also fairly distorted at the widest setting) since i got it. IMO, the 18-200 might seen like a panacea when you're just starting out, but over time, its limitations become more apparent. i dont own the 18-200, but i have shot with it. wasn't impressed. interestingly, after i recommended the 35/1.8 to my friend who had one, he stopped using it and now leaves the 35/1.8 almost permanently mounted to his d300.</p>

<p>if i had to do it all over again, i would have skipped the kit lens altogether and just gone for the 2.8 zoom from the get-go.</p>

<p>the only exceptions i would make to that rule is 1) for the frequent traveler or dweller of dusty places who shoots both wide and tele during the day and never shoots indoors in low-light without flash, and never prints larger than 8x10, in which case the 18-200 would be a good recommendation, and 2) for the 16-85 VR, which optically is as good or better as the tamron (according to photozone), and has a much more useful range (dipping into the long end of ultrawide territory and covering a great deal more of the portrait range).</p>

<p>however, and i beleive it's been said many times here, if the 16-85 was a constant f/4, it would be a lot more attractive. in particular, portraits will suffer from not being able to isolate DoF at the long end, though that wouldnt matter at all for landscapes, because you'll be stopping down to f/8 at least. the main reason to get that over an 18-70 or 18-55 is less distortion and sharper corners, plus that extra 2mm on the wide end. for my shooting style, however, that slow 5.6 max aperture is a deal-breaker.</p>

<p>@jonathan: i did mention that already, actually.</p>

<p>@CC: "you end up in the same place as before when you have your P&S, except that now you have something much bigger to carry around." yeah, but a DSLR<em> looks</em> more impressive. LOL. you make a good point. one could spend less than the price of an 18-200 or 16-85 on a well-spec'd P&S, and if you're just taking landscape photos, the results will be more comparable than many would admit, especially if you use a tripod and shoot in RAW.</p>

<p>@bahram: "There are reasons for the higher price of this lens." sure there are. nikon wants you to pay a lot of money for a slow lens best suited for landscapes, and even more for a 2.8 zoom in the event you want to shoot low-light or action.</p>

<p> </p>

[filippos_papas]

<p>Why are you doing this to me.... seeing these 17-50 pictures make me want to cry! Thank you all again for sharing your time and experience... I have ordered the D90 with the 18-200 lens kit. The kit it self comes with bag, memory card, and the 18-200 lens in a great deal... so it was much much cheaper than buying the D90 body + Tamron 17-50 (probably the VC which is more expensive),memory stick, and bag....So practically its like getting a free lens....( if I had bought both lenses) I will play around and experiment my first steps with the 18-200 and then probably in the summer buy my self the wonderful Tamron 17-50...</p>

[hal_b]

<p>And the money wins again! Another photographer swayed by dollars and pennies rather than logic and proof.</p>

[filippos_papas]

<p>Well Hal what can I say, I am not a photographer and yes money plays an important role in my life. But I will take your suggestion and definitely buy the Tamron in the near future... this way I will appreciate the Tamron oven the 18-200 lens 100 times more! Anyway thank you,</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Hal,</p>

<p>The 18-200 is perfectly capable of taking nice photos for most of us. I've had nothing but compliments on what I've shot with it. For some the 50 or 55-200 range is more useful than the f2.8 aperture for a great many things.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>To readers of this thread who might regard Eric Arnold as a person with knowledge of photography, please note that you can NOT crop a severely compressed .jpg image and get meaningful results. Remember the 100kb file limit?<br>

For those interested in pixel peeping, I have cropped the original .jpg before additional resizing and compression:</p><div></div>

[isaac_hopkins]

<p>As I'm sure many others have pointed out, it is hard to say which is the better solution if we don't know what you'll be doing with it. </p>

<p>That being said I have the D80 and the 18-200. Here is what I've found:<br>

The 18-200 is a fantastic lens, if you only want one lens. It is the ultimate compromise. It isn't particularly sharp, it isn't fast and it doesn't have the best contrast. However, if you frequently shoot where you won't have multiple bodies or don't have time or can't switch lenses, I don't hesitate to use it. For example, taking one of those bus tours in london, I was so glad I had this lens, I was able to get every shot I wanted to, instantly zoom in and out, focus is fast.<br>

Pros:<br>

Big zoom range, mostly fast enough, mostly sharp enough, sensor stays clean, you don't lose the shot, fooling around with the camera.<br>

Cons:<br>

expensive, not the sharpest, not the fastest.</p>

<p>I don't think I would ever buy the tamron, mainly because I don't find 17-50 (eff27 - 75) to be that useful. My 18-200 is usually in the 135 - 200mm range or at 18mm. But that is just how I shoot.<br>

For my money, I'd take the 70-300mm VR and the 35mm dx together over either of these lenses, and I'd put them on a D40 or D5000 not the D90. </p>

<p>-Isaac</p>

[reid_priedhorsky]

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you doing this to me.... seeing these 17-50 pictures make me want to cry! Thank you all again for sharing your time and experience... I have ordered the D90 with the 18-200 lens kit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the 18-200 and it's a dream. There are compromises, sure, but image quality is just fine, more than fine, and I'm sure the wide zoom range will help you learn. IMO, many people around here overweight IQ. "If image quality is paramount" is rarely true. And you absolutely do not need to stop down to f/9 for good quality.</p>

<p>To be blunt, I doubt most people could reliably tell the difference between shots with the 17-50 and the 18-200 except in carefully designed comparisons, unless the images were labeled. I think this is particularly true for you, as an inexperienced user.</p>

<p>Just shoot - you'll be happy. :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hey sven, my bad. i didnt intend to pull a "stunt" and only realized after the fact i was cropping from a downsized file. i knew the 18-200 couldnt be <em>that</em> bad, especially at f/11. probably should have said something. anyway, thanks for posting your crop.</p>

<p>@fillippo: enjoy your new camera and lens. i'm sure the 18-200 will be just fine as a starter lens. i would definitely consider the 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 for low-light stuff, however.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>No offense, Eric. Agree in the need for a fast 35 or 50mm. I use a 35/1.4AIS (love it) and a 50/1.4AFD (like it). But your suggestions are way more affordable and just as good. I did see some examples, though, of the Sigma 30/1.4 having superior bokeh to some Nikon lenses, do not remember the site, alas.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I did see some examples, though, of the Sigma 30/1.4 having superior bokeh to some Nikon lenses, do not remember the site, alas.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>if you just want an affordable low-light lens to supplement a superzoom or kit lens, the 35/1.8 would be my top pick. the 50/1.8 is just as sharp but somewhat less useful on DX.also the 35 has AF-S so if you ever get a d3000 or d5000 as a backup camera, you'll be able to AF.</p>

<p>FWIW, the sigma 30 and 50mm 1.4s do top the nikon variants in terms of bokeh, but are also considerably more expensive. for someone just starting out, a fast zoom or an ultrawide might be a higher priority than a specialty lens like the 30/1.4, since the cost is around the same.</p>

<p>you have to really really like bokeh or take a lot of low-light pics to really warrant a 1.4., especially because the DoF is so narrow at max aperture often you'll need to stop down to 2.2 or 2.8 for acceptably sharp pics. overall i use the 17-50 much more than the 30/1.4, though i love what the 30 can do with out-of-focus elements. if your main lens is a variable aperture kit lens, it does make sense to at least get one of the 1.8 primes for available-light pics.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>You made a good choice, Filippos. Have a look at Bill Hocker's Photo's from India. All taken with the 18-200.</p>

<p>Here is the link: http://billhocker.com/album.php?a=india</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>They are very different lenses with different advantages. Which is best for you depends what you shoot and your preferences. I have both the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Nikon 18-200 VR. I shoot mostly in the city (NY) and being able to go from wideangle to telephoto quickly is very important to me, so I use the 18-200 VR more than any other lens. I also like to travel light. If I'm shooting on the street or in the park I may bring just the 18-200 VR. For general shooting around the city I usually bring my 10.5mm Nikon FF Fisheye, Sigma 10-20, and Nikon 18-200 VR.</p>

<p>When I'm shooting at the zoo or aquarium I bring the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, and Nikon 70-300 VR. Sometimes I also bring the 18-200 VR and sometimes I leave it home. So it depends on what I'm shooting. My advice to you is to think about what you will be shooting. If you are shooting subjects that give you time to change lenses w/o worrying about losing the shot you may want the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and then add a longer and/or wider lens later. If shoot like I do you may be better off with the 18-200 VR.</p>

[liky_yan]

<p>as I said in another post, very simple， being an user of t 17-50 for a long time, this lens is highly not recomend<br>

1.bad build quality..rubber ring seperated for the body, if you often take on or off the lens hood, the palitic of first glass(for install the uv) can be move by your hand.<br>

2.sharpness on 17-35 @ 2.8 is ok, but 35-50@ 5.6 only can be accept.<br>

3. it looks good with my d70s, but still 10% chance to lose focus, 30% lose focus at my friend's d300<br>

4.color is warm(turn yellow a little)<br>

5.cheap second hand price. RMB 1600.......(new one in china is 2990, contraband is 2300)<br>

6.dusty inside easily<br>

7. color is far worse than 17-55, but the price is there</p>

<p>18-200 also is not very sharp even f11 or f8, I tested in the studio, very GN72 400w flash.<br>

and not very cheap....</p>

<p>18-70 is a outstanding lens, especially in its color(3 ed glass inside).... if you can find this lens in the shop ,pls take it , but I know, it won't be easy for you to find it. nikon no longer to produce this lens for a long time. </p>

<p>if you backpacking or liking shooting landscape, 16-85 VR is best choice for you!!!</p>

 

[liky_yan]

<p>upload a picture</p>

[liky_yan]

<p>f8 38mm<br>

sharpness is ok, but color<br>

d70s</p><div></div>

[filippos_papas]

<p>Hi again,<br>

It turned out that they guy in the store made a mistake and the D90 kit came with the Nikon 18-105 so I decided to go with just the D90 body and the Tamron 17-50 non VC lens (since I've read some strange soft focus issues with the VC model). Hope I made the right decision. Tomorrow I will pick it up...</p>