which lenses would you suggest as replacement for Nikon 18-200?

[skip_wilson]

<p>Hello to all.<br>

I currently have a Nikon 18-200 on my Nikon D90 SLR and am looking for a replacement lens or lenses that provide better sharpness , IQ and speed than my current lens but with about the same range of coverage. I know about the Nikon 24-70 /2.8 and its quality but on my D90 I would be losing out on my wide angle range ie. 36mm with my sensor size. Are there some equally good and proven zoom Nikon lenses that get me back to a 18 or 24mm -70mm angle of view on my D90? Does there exist an equal quality fast Nikon lens that would provide me 70-200 angle of coverage that would compliment the wide angle lens I'm asking about above? I am interested in stepping up in quality of lens and realize I will want to get two lenses rather than an all-in-one zoom that I've used over the last several years. Thank you. Skip Wilson</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>The choices are either the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma zooms, matched up with in my experience, the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS. I have been using this combination with D300s bodies about 5 years for pro event and concert work. I know there will be comments that the 50-150 OS is the same size as the 70-200, but the 50-150 is lighter and less costly, and it's the best lens I've ever touched. These will give you the long standing pro range 24-200 equivalent, actually 25.5-225.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I was in your situation some time ago and opted to split the focal length of the 18-200mm with the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI.</p>

<p>The 17-55mm f/2.8 is an excellent zoom lens, I used it for landscapes and close ups for online product mail order sales and would still be using it now 8 years later if I had not switched to full frame. I still have the 70-200mm f/2.8 (Version 1) which is an excellent lens too - especially for DX sensor bodies like the D90.</p>

<p>I personally did not miss having the focal length gap from 55mm to 70mm - this is something you would have to consider for your own requirements - never regretted paying big money for either of the above mentioned lenses, both of which are significant improvements over the 18-200mm super zoom.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You will for sure need 2 lenses indeed. But before recommending anything, what is the budget you have available, and how important are size and weight? Any short-term plans to add a full frame camera, or will you stay on DX?<br>

I mean, the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8VRII is a bit a no brainer for the long end, but not exactly cheap, light or small - and while it sounds great to have a lens this good, carrying it around for a holiday does get terribly annoying. The 18-200 isn't optically great, but excels at this portability and convenience, so it is something to consider thoroughly. To a lesser extend, the same goes for the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, which is as interesting a DX lens as there probably can be.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Almost anything will give better sharpness than an 18-200, but as Wouter says, we need to know what weight and financial budget you're willing to consider - and possibly also how many lenses you're willing to use and whether you really need 200mm. The budget option is the 18-55 complemented by a 55-200, and that should beat the 18-200, but there are options like the 50-150 f/2.8 Sigma that are optically good and cheaper than a 70-200. The 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma is extremely good, but spanning 35-200mm with one lens isn't going to happen without going back to the 18-200. If you plan to stay with DX, I'd consider the 70-200 vr1 over the current version, because it's cheaper and its major failing (soft FX corners at 200mm) doesn't apply to DX. If you want a continuous range, Sigma make a 17-70 f/2.8-4; if you don't mind a gap then there are various 17-50mm f/2.8 options (or 17-55 if you want to spend much more on the Nikkor). Chucking a 60mm macro in your bag would fill the gap if you needed to.<br />

<br />

Alternatively, you might consider a few primes to cover the range. The good news is that the D90 isn't terribly demanding on lenses, but I imagine you might consider a body upgrade in the future (if you spend a fortune on lenses), so that fact may not help much! Good luck.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Either Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS (which is smaller and just as good,) plus the Nikon 55-200mm VR (small, cheap, surprisingly good) or Nikon 70-300mm VR (pretty big sized.) I would buy used where possible.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>When I had a D90, I got the 18-70/70-300VR combo and loved it. It replaced the 18-200 that I subsequently sold.</p>

<p>If I needed (or wanted) speed, I'd probably go for the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 70-200 VR (first edition) if I could afford it.</p>

[huntrbll]

<p>I would look at the 16-35mm and 70-200mm f4 lenses, and a 50mm f1.8. Excellent quality, reasonable size, cover FX and DX in case you decide to upgrade in the future. The 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens, but a bit of a beast. If you don't need the f2.8, save the money.</p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>So many options. In response to your questions, I plan to stay with my D90 rather than move to a full frame SLR but would plan to spend more on good glass instead. I have a cotton carrier single camera vest and enjoy scenic landscapes more than anything and don't see myself needing anything longer than a 200mm (approx. 300 equiv). I would be doing some touring biking and hiking along with foreign travel trips but enjoy being able to take quality pix of the grandkids and family as portraits, too. I am 65 but fit. I have an old micro Nikkor 55/ 2.8 AIS that, of course, doesn't allow me to meter through it with my D90. I use it for closeups and currently for portraits. I would be willing to get a 2.8 lens in the ranges suggested but don't see myself spending over $1500 per lens probably. Can I trust used lenses purchases for these better lenses? I usually deal with Adorama. Thanks Skip Wilson </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I would consider the Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS "C" (the latest iteration) and possibly the Nikon 70-200/4.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Landscapes and the need to fit into a vest suggests that large apertures and large lenses will not be your friend - that may include the 24-70, which is far from small. Dieter's suggestion of the 16-85 and 70-200 f/4 makes a lot of sense to me. If you want portraiture and therefore want some aperture to go with it, I'd think about an 85 f/1.8 (or Sigma or Samyang 85 f/1.4 lenses if you want the extra aperture at the cost of weight and money or autofocus) - just wheel that out when you want to blur a background. But other good solutions exist - and you might even be better looking at something like the Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000 rather than lenses on your D90. I hope you find something that agrees with your needs!</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If you put out big money for high quality lenses, make sure they are compatible with an FX camera. There's nothing wrong with DX, especially if you use long lenses more than short ones, but eventually you will upgrade the body too, and probably for a full-frame model.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with the image quality of you 18-200, other than distortion, which is only visible shooting buildings. It makes a perfect vacation lens. The next step up is a professional quality f/4 or f/2.8 zoom lens, and probably three such lenses, like 17-35/2.8 (or 14-24/4), 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Not only is this serious coin, it's serious weight too. Think of a backpack that tips the scale at 35 pounds.</p>

<p>I've been there, done that, and still do that - what ever is necessary to get the job done. I'm also moving in the opposite direction toward rangefinders, mirrorless cameras, and prime lenses. So far I've kept the kit weight below 10 pounds, but the flesh is weak. Mirrorless is great, but it's not limited to primes of 28mm to 90mm (135mm ??) like a rangefinder, and can use all of the lenses tucked away in my Nikon kit.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Others have offered good discussion of lenses on the short end. I wanted to put another plug in for the relatively new 70-200/4 VR. My copy is really outstanding. So much so that I sold my 2.8 zoom that I left home often due to size/weight. I think the lens is worth the substantial premium after comparing to my friend's 70-300VR.</p>

<p>The original 18-70 DX zoom performed well for me, and is pretty inexpensive used. I have not tried the new 18-55VR that collapses into a smaller package, but I would want to consider one of those since I tend to like smaller/lighter lenses.</p>

<p> A small/fast aperture prime like the 35/1.8DX would round out my bag. Wish Nikon made a small fast DX semi-wide, something like an 18 and/or 24mm/f2DX. I don't know how good the Sigma lenses in this category are.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Hi Skip,<br /> From what you already mentioned I can estimate that you have a budget of $3.000 to spend on lenses and you would like one of them to be at least f/2.8. At the same time you're sticking with your D90 which is DX format. So here is what I was thinking...<br /> 1) You can consider a Tamron (or Sigma) 17-50 f/2.8, as this will cover you the 24-70mm on Fx you were discussing and you get a fast lens as you requested. I wouldn't go for the Nikon version due to weight and price mainly. <br /> 2) As a second lens I would suggest an FX lens such as Nikon 24-120 f/4, which is 36-180mm equivalent to DX and your D90.<br /> 3) Finally you can consider Nikon 70-300 (also an FX lens), which will cover the equivalent of 105-450 on DX. Your budget of $3.000 will be enough to cover those 3 lenses.<br /> I have used in the past all 3 lenses on my D7000 and I was very, very happy person, the FX lenses should work fine with your D90 and in case you move to FX format one day they will be useful. As for the Tamron you can even get the non VC version which is even cheaper. Whatever you decide enjoy taking pictures and have fun with your family! Cheers!<br>

PS: If you shoot raw, with the FX lenses especially, you will get much better results!</p>

[Two23]

<p>Now that I have a clearer idea of what you are doing with the camera gear, here's an alternative:<br /> D7100--prices on used ones have dropped to the point they are a great value. You actually will see a difference.<br /> Lenses: Nikon 10-24mm, Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART, Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS.</p>

<p>This is a fairly lightweight and compact set up that gives you tremendous versatility. You will see a difference using these lenses! I have the Sigma 35mm and it just might be the sharpest lens I have owned, EVER! (I have owned a big pile of lenses from Zeiss, Hassleblad, Leica etc. over the years.) If you aren't using a tripod though, a lot of that sharpness will go to waste. The Sigma is a surprisingly heavy lens. The little Nikon 35mm f1.8G is much lighter and pretty good too. The kit I've listed above will hit the sweet spot between performance and price. I'm a very conservative guy from the Midwest and am always looking for the best value for my money. The D7100 has twice the resolution of the D90 and a much better auto focus. <br /> As for buying used, most all the lenses I've ever purchased have been used. In the past couple of months I've purchased four more lenses, averaging about $1,000 each. ALL were used. I've never had a problem buying used. Some come from ebay, some come from Fred Miranda buy\sell, some come from email deals with others on the forum here. Never had a problem.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"I currently have a Nikon 18-200 on my Nikon D90 SLR and am looking for a replacement lens or lenses that provide better sharpness, IQ and speed than my current lens but with about the same range of coverage."</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>I have never owned or used the 18-200mm but I know a number of photographers who do and love it. When I need a one-lens solution I usually rely on a compact camera with a fixed zoom lens that is similar in coverage to an 18-200mm.</p>

<p>If I needed a two-lens solution, I would consider a 55-200mm to use with my 18-55mm. I can vouch for the image quality of the 18-55 but I have never used the 55-200.</p>

<p>However, if I really wanted faster lenses with better image quality, I would rely on the so called "Holy Trinity:"<br /> 14-24mm f/2.8<br /> 24-70mm f/2.8<br /> 70-200mm f/2.8</p>

<p>I own and use the 14-24mm but have older versions of the other two lenses (35-70mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8). The size, weight, and cost of these lenses do not concern me because they give me the image quality, focal length coverage, and lens speed that I need for my shooting style.</p>

<p>The fourth lens in the photo is a 20-35mm f/2.8.</p>

 

<p>

<div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dieter's suggestion for the 16-85VR and 70-200 f/4VR sounds a good kit to me. The 16-85VR may be a slow lens, and still a bit pricier than its specs suggest, but as a landscape lens, it's really very good. I've had it, and basically, it did everything I threw at it. Sure f/5.6 on the long end isn't ideal, but it is a sharp lens and VR works well. Plus, 16mm is quite noticeably wider than 18mm. The 70-200 f/4 is a better compromise on portability, as the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are large and heavy.</p>

<p>I would consider however to add some small, light, fast lenses in the 16-85VR range, for sure the 35 f/1.8DX. This will counter the slower aperture of the 16-85 when needed. Or alternatively a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and covers the portrait range just fine (so you'd have a landscape and a portrait setup side by side).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I really want to be wary of the suggestions of the FX f/2.8 "super kit" (14-24, 24-70, 70-200). Not only are you paying for FX coverage - especially with the 14-24 - there's no particular indication that Skip needs f/2.8, and putting this lot in a camera vest is going to be uncomfortable. Yes, I'm a mug and carry a huge camera bag with a 14-24, 70-200, 150mm macro, sometimes a 200 f/2, etc. in it - but I need the exercise, and I'm counterbalanced by my belly. It sounds as though Skip would benefit from lighter weight, even if he's fit. And a D90 really won't benefit much (yes, it will a little) from the difference between the best glass and the decent f/4 lenses. Plus the 14-24 is huge partly because it's an FX coverage 14mm lens - whereas Skip hasn't indicated the need to go wider than 16mm on DX.</p>

 

<blockquote>There's nothing wrong with the image quality of you 18-200, other than distortion, which is only visible shooting buildings.</blockquote>

 

<p>Really? I mean, I don't own one, partly because I shoot FX, but mostly because every review I've seen is pretty darned critical of that lens (and every other superzoom) for image quality. The consensus I've heard is "pretty good on a 6MP body, iffy on 12MP, paperweight as you go higher". It just about has its place (although so does digital cropping from a shorter lens), but I don't think there's a reason to believe that a search for some better optics is unjustified.<br />

<br />

That said, I agree with Kent that at some point a new camera (or specifically sensor) will make more difference than the lenses. And a D7x00 series will meter with Skip's macro lens. (And with a 135 f/2.8 AI-S, if you want one of my recommended tiny portrait lenses.)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Indeed, Andrew is right, the "holy trinity" is really not a great choice for someone who is DX and likely to stay that way.</p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>Is there any advantage or reason for me to go to FX Nikon rather upgrade my D90 DX to a used Nikon 7000 or 7100 which I believe are DX? That may make a difference if I go to Nikon 17-55/2.8 and go to the Nikon 70-200/4 with a DX or go a Nikon 24-70/2.8 on the short end with the 70-200/4 if I go FX. I would probably continue to get just Nikon lenses rather than a third party lens. Thanks . Skip Wilson</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Skip, if price is no object, I would go FX... unless I did more tele than wide by a large margin, in which case DX makes a LOT of sense.</p>

<p>For me, price was always an object, which is why I always stuck with DX (until I switched this year to an even SMALLER format). The FX stuff is just too big for my particular needs.</p>

<p>Only you can decide.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<Is there any advantage or reason for me to go to FX Nikon rather upgrade my D90 DX to a used Nikon 7000 or 7100 which I believe are DX? That may make a difference if I go to Nikon 17-55/2.8 and go to the Nikon 70-200/4 with a DX or go a Nikon 24-70/2.8 on the short end with the 70-200/4 if I go FX. I would probably continue to get just Nikon lenses rather than a third party lens. Thanks . Skip Wilson>></p>

<p>There were two advantages for me. I was using a D7100 plus Nikon f2.8 zooms for weddings and everything else for that matter. I was running into a couple of problems though. The first was that sometimes I was getting requests for really big enlargements, such as 20x30 and even bigger. The D7100 was OK but beginning to show shortcommings. The second factor was I was shooting a fair amount of images with architecture in them. I was having to tilt the camera backwards to get the tops of the buildings and that was causing distortion. I really wanted a tilt/shift lens to correct that but they have clearance issues on the D7100. So, I started doing research on lenses and cameras. I ended up buying a used D800E from a surgeon who barely used it (he bought a D810!) The camera was the cheap part at ~$1,500. To really get the good from the camera I needed new lenses. I ended up buying four, at an average price of $1,000 each. I now have something like $7,000 worth of lenses (price I could get on ebay.) You can clearly see where I put my priorities. I've found that no one I show my photos to can see any difference in my photos with two exceptions. There is a clear difference made by the 24mm PC-E lens (tilt/shift) and on big enlargements. Otherwise, image quality from D7100 and D800E is very very close in the real world. I basically bought the 24mm PC-E and then looked for a camera to use it on.</p>

<p>Third party lenses. Some are OUTSTANDING! I was looking for the very best lenses available for the D800E. Two are Nikon, and two are the Sigma 35mm & 50mm f1.4 ART lenses. They smoke the Nikon equivalents! The best ultrawide lens you can put on a Nikon DX camera is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. DxO rates the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS ahead of the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. Don't assume the Nikon lens will be the best because sometimes it ain't. My Sigma 35mm is just stunningly sharp! The lens list I gave you is top notch, absolutely.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you're mainly going to be shooting landscapes outdoors, in good light, a 16-85+70-200/4 combo is a good choice. i'd probably pick up one of the 1.8 prime lenses for background blur and low-light in that situation, with the 50 being the most versatile and the 85 having a bit better bokeh. no real need to overcomplicate this. i wouldn't recommend the sigma 35 ART for a DX body. though its a terrific lens, the nikon 35/1.8 DX G has one of the best price/performance ratios around. i would consider getting a d7100 for landscapes at base ISO, which is a good application for that 24mp sensor. the d90 is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the d7100 is an upgrade in every key performance metric. </p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>I thank you all for your interest and helpful input!! Between this forum and DP Reviews I have found information insightful from users more experienced than I. Right now I'm leaning toward staying DX and upgrading the D90 with the D7100 and therefore probably going with the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX and the Nikon 70-200/4 DX/FX. I had heard there were some functioning problems with the Sigma lenses and the D7100 in some cases. I hope one can reliably get a used or refurbished D7100 (any advantage of refurbished over used?) or look for a new one on E-bay. Thank you. Any last thoughts? Skip Wilson</p>

[Albins images]

<p>I echo the 16-85 & 70-200/4 combination that is mentioned here several times. AND also the recommended 50/1.8 (older versions are fine) as an extra. If you want to go cheaper, try to find a good and second hand 18-70, which are very cheap, very good and sometimes get stuck mechanically.. The 70-200/4 is so good, that it is worth the price!<br /><br />Good luck.</p>