Forum menu
Morning all. mrs rocket has a Nikon D5100 and although the std kit lens works well enough it has its limitations.
She enjoys wildlife photography and misses the 10x zoom of her old TZ compact but still wants to take point-and-shoot snaps, landscapes, protraits etc without having to change lenses. How practical would an 18-200mm be as an everyday lens 😕
The price is eye-watering enough but I'm wondering about distortion and camera shake. The Tamron and Sigma lenses are considerably less expensive than Nikkor's finest but are they compromised?
Any thoughts/feedback very welcome.
Obvious answer, hire one for a weekend to find out?
As you say, expensive, so why not check they work for her before splashing a lot of cash.
I'd go with the above advice and hire one to try.
I borrowed one from a friend for a week and it is a pretty good lens.
Presumably you'd be going for the VR version of the lens, which does help with camera shake to some extent. But, you'll still be wanting a decent amount of light when at the long end of the lens.
I thought it was too bulky though to envisage using it all the time.
You can hire them?
i've got one and it is very good, quite versatile. however, increasingly - especially for travel - i tend to leave the fixed 35 on because it's far smaller and lighter, and it also stops you relying on/overdoing it with the zoom. for wildlife and stuff it would be handy, though.
Yep....knock yourself out....
http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/nikon-af-s-dx-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-51-p.asp
😀
I'll also add, that a 55-200 or 70-300 is a *lot* cheaper, and you might be able to handle the extra hassle of swapping for the savings... my GF has a tamron 70-300 to go with her kit lens, and is pretty happy with it. No VR but it was very cheap and monopod can help. Quality of pictures seems decent, it's really just the fact you need a decent amount of light with that long a lens.
Jacobs and Calumet also hire, and they're all over the country - look up and call one near you, see if they hire the lenses you're looking at.
I have had one for the past 5 years and its my most used lens.
It give good consistent pictures and is fast focusing and smooth to zoom.
My f1.8 50mm is a bit sharper and used in low light, but as a use anywhere lens the 18-200mm Nikkor VR is brilliant.
If you live near Leeds you are welcome to try it out.
Yeah - to follow on from IA's comments.
I bought my D80 with the kit 18-135mm lens, which i use as my everyday lens. I'd like to replace it with something like a 24-70 2.8, but can't really afford it.
I also bought the 70-300 VR lens which is great for wildlife & sports stuff.
Just noticed too - is the D5100 a 'compact' slr with a smaller body? It looks like it. This might make it that bit more unwieldy to use full time, compared with the same lens on something like the D90 or the D7000. The compact body and fairly large lens might make the whole thing a bit unbalanced to leave on all the time - definitely worth trying, I reckon.
It'd make a pretty good walkaround lens but it's worth considering the alternatives as much of the range is already covered by your kit lens.
Your main reason for the new lens is to shoot a wider range of stuff without changing lens so an 18-200 fits the bill perfectly, your local camera shop should let you try out what they have and they will probably have both the nikon and sigma versions.
Not sure how heavy it is, but that's a personal preference - I use a 24-70 as my day-to-day lens and don't notice it (it's a kilo!).
If she really wants to do more wildlife photography you may be better off with a longer VR lens with 300-400mm at the long end.
I cannot rate mine high enough - its the most used lens on my D8000 by far.
Forget about one lens for everything. It will be a compromise. Something like a tamron 28-75 and a longer telephoto for wildlife would be a good start (assuming the camera is full frame)
OK thanks for the replies fellas.
As above the kit lens is adequate for walkabout and not obtrusive but fairly hopeless for distance work.
Would a 70-300 for example be a better (and cheaper!) zoom lens 😕 mrs rocket would swap lenses if a zoom would put her 10x closer to the subject without compromising picture quality.
Just concerned that an 18-200 may be jack of all trades and master of none.
A 70-200 would be better.
Got one on my D5000. Mine was secondhand, although you wouldn't know it - try Mifsuds, Ffordes or Grays of Westminster.
There's 2 versions of the lens - the only practical difference is the newer one (VRII) has a switch to lock the lens at wide angle so it doesn't extend when carrying it around. Mine does occasionally extend, but it's not a major problem.
As to the lens itself? Pretty good do everything. It has a wider max aperture than the kit lens the body came with (18-55VR), isn't a massive amount bigger, physically (goes in the same case) and just works... Downsides? Occasional autofocus hunting, the self-extending zoom and the biggy is distortion - around the edges it does barrel distort quite badly. Not the be all and end all, as you can correct it in photosphop (or I think if you have the fancy Nikon photo editor it can autocorrect).
It's the only lens I currently have, and whilst I'd like a fast 35mm, I can't say I'm in any great hurry for it.
Edit - I've just checked the prices of the various lenses - there's a hell of a lot more difference in price than there was 2 years ago when I bought mine. I think I paid about £300 for it...!
I cannot rate mine high enough - its the most used lens on my D8000 by far.
D8000?
OP, the consensus seems to be that the 18-105mm is a better piece of kit. The 18-200 is something of a jack of all trades. Sorry for the slap-dash response; but I'm on my way out of the door. Try a web search for 'Nikon 18-105 vs 18-200'.
Do it all lenses are ok, and have a purpose.
But if you want higher image quality, then I would suggest carrying various lenses for different purposes, but obviously this costs more.
I have an 18-200 lens, and don't like it. Poor image quality coupled with soft focus.
I now want a 24-70 (or 24-105) lens, coupled with a 70-200 lens. Admitedly these are expensive, but I think I'd get a higher conversion rate when processing images, in other words I wouldnt reject so many.
D8000?
yeah i mean my d7000 - sorry was just looking at a d800!
JonEdwards - MemberIt's the only lens I currently have, and whilst I'd like a fast 35mm, I can't say I'm in any great hurry for it.
do it - the 35's only about £170 and it's absolutely awesome, I love mine and as mentioned above use almost only that these days. highly recommended. the bokeh on the wide apertures is lovely.
e.g.
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6236/6249429229_99340a151a_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/theflatboy/6249429229/ ]Lunch guest[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/theflatboy/ ]theflatboy[/url], on Flickr
My old man has the 18-200VR and uses it and its pretty much stuck to his D300. I already had an 18-55VR so I just went for the cheap option and got the 55-200VR but even though its a cheap lens it does fine for me.
Have a look here too..
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/
Forgot to add, if I were to buy anything now it would be the 35mm f1.8 though.
Flatboy - rotate that picture to get the horizon straight!
200mm isn't that great for wildlife. I have 300mm on my 4/3 camera which has a greater crop factor, and that's still not that satisfying despite being over 10x magnification. You still have to be fairly close to get a good picture, well within the range at which many animals are scarpering, but it's as much as you can practically use hand-held or with a monopod, and get decent apertures at a decent price.
This is a really interesting post because I was in a camera shop today asking the same question, I too have a Nikon D5100 and I want a bigger lens.
What should I do also,
I question I have answered is to get a lens with VR though.
I was reading a review on Flipboard the other day on the Tamron 18-270, and overall the review was very positive as an everyday walkabout lens. It's only flaw was across the range barrel distortion, but the guy doing the review had an action set up in Lightroom to compensate, although he said that in many cases it wouldn't show. Generally very favourable.
I've just bought a Lumix TZ-30, which has a 20X optical zoom, rather than go the Tamron route, purely because I use a camera at gigs, and a DSLR is an absolute no-no in most cases, whereas a dinky little Lumix gets no attention, plus it has focus tracking and face recognition.
And the Lumix is about half the price of an 18-270, and smaller than my old TZ-3, which is a plus.
[edit]Just had a quick look through Flipboard, and found it:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/22/review-tamron-18-270mm-f3-5-6-3-superzoom-lens/
[/edit]
Nikon 18-200 is a great lens. There are better optics of ourselves but as a bit of a quality compromise, you can't go wrong. The VR bit is excellent.
When I had a D300 and did wedding photography, it was the most used lens. But the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 p155ed all over it for plain and simple depth of field control and quality but you try and hand hold one of them at anything less than 1/90th of a second and expect a shake free image!
I'm using Nikkor 18-70 and a 70-300VR (the fullframe old one) - both excellent lenses. 200m is too short for most wildlife. If she doesn't want to change lenses get an additional body...seriously.
Got my 2nd hand nikon lenses at MBP
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-nikon-fit-lenses/
some pics from the 70-300
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
last 2 handheld indoors so a little less sharp
It's the lens Barnes uses for pretty much all his cycling shots, so its certainly tough!
Interesting.
I've been "wanting" a 70-200 2.8 for my Nikon for about 5 years (haven't been able to justify the price 🙁 )
Still interested though and a planned trip later this year means it is back on the agenda.
Anyone used the Sigma 70-200? Does it need the VR / OS found on the later (more expensive) model.
Does it need the VR / OS found on the later (more expensive) model.
If you need to use a shutter speed longer than 1/200th, you'll probably need VR / OS @ 200mm on FX. If its a DX camera, its effective focal length is 300mm, so you'd need at leas 1/300th to get a sharp photo reliably
The 2.8 fixed aperature appeals because I want to maintain faster shutter speeds - so VR may not be a necessity for me.
However, I do like to slow the shutter speed and pan action shots - that may be more interesting...
The 2.8 fixed aperature appeals because I want to maintain faster shutter speeds - so VR may not be a necessity for me.
1/300 is pretty fast even at f/2.8 unless it's very bright. And at f/2.8, your focussing would have to be bang on
molgrips - MemberFlatboy - rotate that picture to get the horizon straight!
sorry. 😳
And at f/2.8, your focussing would have to be bang on
That's true.
Wanted the faster, longer lens for this sort of thing...
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
More than happy for any advice on suitable lenses.
The above was taken on the standard DSLR kit lens (18-70 IIRC).