Which 18-200 lens ?

[simon_bradley]

<p>Morning guys, newbie here, so thanks in advance to anyone who offers help.<br>

I have a D3100 for which I want to purchase an 18-200 lens. I'm nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur, and a lot of my pictures are little more than holiday/travel/family, but I do like producing good pictures in those categories.<br>

I'm really look for advice between whether to spend my cash on a NEW Tamrom/Sigma type lens with the security of a warranty it offers, or a 2nd HAND Nikon VR (can't justify the spend of a VRII, but reports Ive read suggest thats not much better than the VR anyway), realising that will be a good few years old.<br>

The overall cost/sell on value is pretty irrelevant, so my question is really whether I am likely to see better quality images from a 6-8 year old Nikon VR lens or from a brand new Tamron or Sigma (and which out of those two brnads anyone would recommend ?)<br>

Once again, thanks in advance<br>

Si</p>

<p> </p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>There's no difference in the optical formula between the two Nikon 18-200mm lenses. I've had a couple of copies, but have now completely bailed out of Nikon and into Olympus MFT. A s/h Nikon is likely to give better performance overall, although I found mine to be soft at the long end. I preferred the 16-85mm in terms of sharpness and overall image quality. It's long enough for head shots and wide enough for some nice landscapes.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Simon, not many people here are fans of these superzooms (including me). There are better alternatives, really. I'll assume you have the 18-55VR lens that came with the D3100 now? I'd really consider adding the 55-200VR lens to your kit - it's cheaper and better. Or, second hand, the Nikon 18-70. The Sigma 17-70, nice option. And possibly the nicest allround value for money is the 18-105VR.</p>

<p>All 18-200 lenses are compromises, and none of them really reaches the performance of lenses with less zoomrange. Years ago, I did have the Tamron 18-200. Looking back photos shot with it, it's basically never really sharp beyond ~120mm. The Nikon 18-200 (VR1 and VR2 are optically identical) is also known to be weak towards the long end. And surprise, the long end of the Sigma is also where it starts to have serious sharpness problems....<br>

That's why I would get a 18-105VR.... it seems 95mm shorter, but in real world usage, the difference is really minor. And it is a lot cheaper than the 18-200 lenses, and fairly frequently found brand new 2nd hand too (from D7000/D7100 owners getting it in the kit).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a D3100 for which I want to purchase an 18-200 lens. I'm nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur, and a lot of my pictures are little more than holiday/travel/family, but I do like producing good pictures in those categories.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While those 18-200, 18-300, and 28-300 super zooms are major compromises, the OP seems to fit into their targeted users quite well, e.g. travel and casual photography.</p>

<p>Personally, I would avoid those third-party 18-200, 18-250 zooms that are f6.3 on the long end. AF accuracy will suffer unless you are under bright sunlight. The main difference between Nikon's 18-200 versions 1 and 2 is that version 2 has a lock to keep the lens at 28mm to avoid zoom creep.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I buy used lenses on a regular basis, so if you want one of these superzooms, I'd stick with buying a manufacturers used lens, in this case Nikon.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I agree that these super zooms are a good choice for Simon. They are perfectly acceptable walking-around lenses which is just what they were designed for. I would go with Nikon and not hesitate to buy used. As an alternative to used you could consider a refurbished Nikon 18-200 AFS VRII from Adorama. They have them in stock at $519.00. It comes with a 90 day warranty and free shipping. (If you are worried you can add a 7 year warranty for about $35.00.) The 18-105 VR from them refurbished is only $199.00. The 16-85 is $569.00.<br>

At those prices it is not necessary to go with a third party lens. </p>

 

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>I too would suggest to get the Nikon lens (VR or VR II). Both are optically the same as mentioned above. I have the first edition and still works fine. It would suit your 3100 just fine for what you intend to shoot. Cheers!</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>I have the Nikon VR I and I am very happy with it.</p>

[simon_bradley]

<p>Thanks guys.<br>

After careful consideration and a bit more reading around. I'm going to go for the Nikon 18-105VR for now, and see whether the 105 goes as close as I really need. I suspect I'll find for the sort of shots I take I really don't need to go any further in than that.<br>

A quick look on eBay suggests there are many 'as new' models for around the 100-120 mark, because of it being included as the stock lens on the 7000 models.<br>

Thanks for your help, and I'm looking forward to taking a greater, and less-specific, read through these threads now that I've found them!</p>

[evannorth]

<p>if the op still has the 18-55 kit lens i would suggest the 55-200vr. cheap, light and sharp.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 18-105 you are looking at is probably a better choice.</p>

<p>The 18-200 was WONDERFUL with a 6MP camera. I LOVED mine with my D50. As soon as I went to 12MP, and found myself wanting something bigger and sharper, it really really disappointed above about 100mm. Truly, cropping in from about 100 looked better, sometimes, than shooting at 200mm.</p>

<p>I think you're making a great choice! Good luck!</p>

[simon_bradley]

<p>Thanks, I forgot to merntion earlier that my original 18-55 is broken which is why, ideally, I want a single lens for most shots, and chosing a 55-upwards is not an option at this time. Thanks again for all the advice.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>At least consider the 16-85mm. It has some compromises, but fewer than the lenses with longer reaches, all the same. : http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/635-nikkor16853556vr?start=2</p>

 

[deutsh_nehmman]

If you wana tamron ,then get sp

17-50mm f/2.8 or sigma like this

parameters .or nikon 17-55mm

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Just to clear things up regarding the Nikon 18-200 lens. Both are VRII lenses. The newer one has a switch that locks the at 18 otherwise they are the same! I own the original, bought it when if first came out in 2005 or 06 and have used it for many trips where all I wanted was one lens. On the Nikonians.com forum where I'm a member I've seen the original go for $400 which is a great deal on the 18-200. I'd choose a Nikon over a third party 18-200 lens any day!</p>

[rich_conley]

<p>I don't understand the logic. . .if the 18-105 is sharp and the 18-200 is sharp at 105, why would one choose to forgo the extra telephoto length? So what if internet reports a softness at 200mm. . .at least one would <em>have</em> 200 mm when needed.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Rich, for the same money as an 18-200 (or for slightly more), one could buy an 18-55 (or a used 18-70, which is what I got) and a 70-300 both, and have way way better images at the long end.</p>

<p>200mm on the 18-200 is only useful on 6MP, and only then when you're not cropping a lot. In this age of 16+ MP, that lens is really not a good choice anymore.</p>