Trade these for a 18-200mm VR?

[dspindle]

<p>I have the D90 and the 18-55 II as well as the 55-200 VR. I love both lenses. I shoot mostly nature and flower close up photos. The 18-55 is on the camera most of the time, and I use the 55-200 for close ups generally at the 200mm end. I've heard such good things about the 18-200 VR and I'm tempted by it, since it would save me from changing lenses. However, if I would be giving up any performance optically, (especially at around 24mm and 200mm) then I'll keep the set up I have. Any suggestions are appreciated, and thanks! </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I tried it out (at a time when I had an 18-55 VR and a 55-200 VR) and while having that whole focal range is definitely good, I didn't love it overall. It underperformed both the kit lenses in their focal ranges. Still, as all-in-one superzooms go, it was the best I'd tried. Making an 11x zoom is <em>hard</em>.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Dave - </p>

<p>The 18-200 VR is my primary travel lens - it covers all the focal lengths I need and does a nice job (good enough to sell a few vacation photos as stock images) </p>

<p>However it is one of those lenses that you either love or hate - I happen to love both copies that I have. (VRI) - I know that there are a fair amount of people on this forum that dislike the lens - but for what I use it for - it rules.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: If I'm shooting a paid gig - it stays at home. Period. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you're going to be traveling, it's great. I recently sold mine because I don't anticipate taking the kinds of trips that would benefit from it, but when I went on my Alaska trip in 06, it was used for all but two of my photos or something like that.</p>

<p>It's an AWESOME travel lens, but, as David says, I wouldn't use it professionally myself. It's also a really great fun Kid lens if you're a dad.</p>

<p>These days, I'd rather have an 16-85 VR/70-300 VR combo, but that wasn't available when I was buying the first time. I have an 18-70 (non VR)/70-300 VR now that I think I'd LOVE for a vacation. I'd buy a second body, put one on each, and shoot all day without changing lenses...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have the 18-200 VR and agree with what's been said. I would add that you don't do a lot of cropping or print larger than 8x10 you won't see any real difference. Maybe if you put two 8x10's side by side you'll see some difference but not a lot. If the marginal difference in sharpness is important, stick to what you have or upgrade the 18-55 to a 16-85 VR. If you are shooting a lot at 200mm, maybe you should consider the 70-300 VR or new 55-300 VR.<br>

If you are losing shots changing lenses and you don't mind the differnce in sharpness, the 18-200 VR is a good choice. I would also consider the Tamron 18-270 VC and Sigma 18-250 OS. Both are stabilized, comparable in IQ, and less expensive. I recently bought the Tamron 18-270 VC because it is a little longer than the Nikon. I find it sharper than the Nikon at the long end and I find that I don't use my Nikon 70-300 VR any more. I'll probably sell both Nikons. But I never print larger than 8.5x11 and being able to carry one lens instead of the two Nikons important to me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard such good things about the 18-200 VR and I'm tempted by it, since it would save me from changing lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what is the problem with changing lenses? I do that all the time.</p>

<p>If for whatever reason you cannot change lenses, clearly a super zoom can solve that problem, but you pay a lot in terms of lens cost and image quality for that convenience.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>Keep the two you have. They're better performers - although not as convenient.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 18-200 is quite poor at 200mm to be honest. If you would like better quality for close-ups, consider a Micro-Nikkor. Avoiding lens changes ... why would you want to do that? The point of an interchangeable lens camera is that you <em>can</em> change lenses when needed. This means you can get (much) better quality since you can use specialized lenses for a task.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I suggest you try the lens out for yourself. Different photographers report different results. Based on my experience with all three lenses, they provide pretty much the same IQ, especially for typically sized prints. Post processing also can affect results. I owned several copies of the 18-200mm and they all worked great. My original lens was purchased when the lens first came out. It gave me pretty much the same sharp results as ANY Nikon lens I own/owned at both the wide and long end.</p>

<p>If you are interested in a more technical analysis, visit the DXO Mark site which scores them all basically the same. </p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Other than the limitations already mentioned, why would anyone sacrifice quality unless completely restrained by economics?</p>

<p>If I am on vacation for fun; there is a good possibility I (might) come across that once in a lifetime shot. I certainly won't take a chance with the lens in question.</p>

<p>I had one for a short time.</p>

<p>Forgive my analogy; but I know of no one who would install re-tread tires on a Ferrari claiming <em>"Well, I never drive over 100 MPH"</em> The day you take your Ferrari over 100 MPH, you will be most disappointed.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>That's why if I was going on a big vacation, I'd run out and buy an 18-200 or 16-85 right away.</p>

<p>btw, OPer, that's another you should look at. The 16-85 at the long end, cropped in to where you would have been had you had 200mm, would make a good 8 x 10 still.</p>

[dspindle]

<p>Thanks all, I believe I'll keep my current set up. Appreciate your comments!</p>