Question about different LENS

[kmu]

I bought a Nikon D90 kit that included the 18-55mm VR and the 55-200 VR, I havent used the 55-200 yet and got a $200 offer for it.

Should I sell the 55-200 and get the 18-200mm VR?

Alot of guys suggest the 18-200mm for a great all around lens, would it take better lanscape/hunting/family pictures Vs the 55-200mm?

One last question, is the 55-200mm only 3.4x optical zoom and the 18-200mm 11x of optical zoom, if thats the case the 18-200 should be alot better?

THX in advance

 

[tyoberg]

When you zoom all the way in with either lens (the 18-200 or the 55-200), you get 200mm--it's not like it'll make stuff look bigger.

I've got a 55-200VR and it gets annoyingling dark in the corners when you zoom all the way in. I don't know if the 18-200 is the same in that respect.

The 18-200 is a lot larger than the lens you're typically using (the 18-55).

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

If you never use your 55-200 why would an 18-200 be any better than your 18-55?

a 1mm-2mm lens is 2x optical zoom
a 1-11mm lens is 11x optical zoom
a 10mm-100mm lens is 10x optical zoom
a 55mm-200mm lens is 3.4x optical zoom because 200 divided by 55 is 3.4
a 18mm-200mm lens is 11 x optical zoom because 200 divided by 18 is 11.1111111111111111111...
200mm is 200mm is 200mm, so there isn't any difference after the dust settles.

If you have a 55-200 f/4-5.6 but never use it, why get so excited to sell and replace it with an 18-200 f/3.5-5.6? You already have an 18-200 with two separate lenses. Of course you also have to sell the 18-55mm because keeping it would defeat the whole purpose of an 18-200mm.
I see what you are trying to do but am confused why you are trying to do it.

Generally 1x zoom (no zoom at all) is better than 3.4x zoom, and 3.4x zoom is better than 11x zoom as far as optimal quality is concerned. With the 11x zoom you are likely sacrificing colors, contrast, lighter weight, and a few other items in exchange for the convenience of not having to switch lenses. I want the best quality so its more convenient for me to unscrew a lens and screw on a different one than not to. Then again I don't use Nikon and don't know the intricate details of their lens lineup so that may not be the case. Knowing something of the physics behind the optics, logic would lead me to believe this is true though.

 

[Robb in Austin]

I think it depends on whether you want to change lenses or not. I do not think you will see any difference in the image quality.

 

[kmu]

So should I just keep my stock lens then?

what I mean is my camara kit comes with a 18-55 and a 55-200, I havent used the 55-200 because I wanted to sell it for a larger zoom lens and since alot of people recommend the 18-200 as a great walk around thats why I wanted to switch.

So the 18-55 and the 55-200 serve the same purpose as an 18-200 but in 2 lenses? I should just keep the 55-200 and avoid spending more money on the 18-200?

 

[dendronepthya]

I agree with Rob. It depends if you don't mind changing lenses. An 18-200 is a nice lens to have a lot of focal lengths covered in good light.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The 18-200mm is NOT a larger zoom lens than the 55-200mm. It's the same. A 400mm lens would have double the zoom of 200mm. If I was going to replace a 200mm lens with a 200mm lens, I would at least strive for a wider aperture. f/5.6 is rather slow in my opinion and a 200mm f/4 or f/2.8 would serve me much better. Of course that depends where you are "walking around" and what time of day I suppose. I may not always "need" f/2.8, but when I do, and I do a lot, it's a comforting feeling.

 

[tyoberg]

The 18-200mm is NOT a larger zoom lens than the 55-200mm. It's the same. A 400mm lens would have double the zoom of 200mm. If I was going to replace a 200mm lens with a 200mm lens, I would at least strive for a wider aperture. f/5.6 is rather slow in my opinion and a 200mm f/4 or f/2.8 would serve me much better. Of course that depends where you are "walking around" and what time of day I suppose. I may not always "need" f/2.8, but when I do, and I do a lot, it's a comforting feeling.

The 18-200mm physical package is bigger than the 55-200.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I havent used the 55-200 because I wanted to sell it for a larger zoom lens

I don't think he meant bigger and heavier but otherwise functionally the same

 

[maroun.c]

the 3 lenses you mention are basically in the same league: non pro Nikon glass.
The 18-55 had bad previews many people thought it wasn't worth it and many people advised to upgrade to 18-70 which is still a low cost kit lense but offers better coverage and better image quality. never used the 55-200 VR but its reported to be a bit sharper than the 18-200 at max zoom, the 18-200 of course covers a wider range and at the wide range of the 55-200 is sharper. now the 18-200VR is a bit soft on the wide and maybe a bit on the long end however it brings convenience of not changing lenses. if you have the patience and time (subject dependant) to switch lenses all the time then you could even go to a set of primes that would give you top notch quality but not the convenience fo a zoom.
Depending on subjects you might find yourself shooting at the maximum zoom of the 18-50 and wishing yo uhad just a bit more. I once did some stats when using my 18-200VR for children shots and found that I use the 40-80 range quite a bit which means If I had an 18-50 that I would be getting pushing the zoom to it's max and wishing for more or continuously switching between teh 18-50 and 55-200 which would eventually get frustrating and lead to more visits to Nikon service cetner to clean up your CCD from dust.
I would change both lenses to the 18-200VR if you can still get a decent price for them and if you fancy the convenience of this coverage. quality won't be top notch but it'll still be acceptable for some especailly when on travel... also the 18-200 VR will also bring VR to the 18-55 range which you don't currently have and it is quite usefull at this range as you're mostly shooting indoors that wide and there lighting can be on the low side.... still the lens is a bit still slow even wide open and it goes slower the more you zoom.
other choices if you can afford them would be:
Nikon 17-55 2.8 excellent image quality but high price tag.
Tamron or Sigma 17-50 2.8 some would say these match the nikon 17-50 in sharpness even wide open but I don't believe my tamron does. it's still acceptable. I love it for the ability of really close focus which allows you to support it against the glass of the tank and focus on close things, can't do this with 18-200 most of the time. Those might not autofocus on your camera so check.
Nikon 80-200 old pro lense no VR great IQ very heavy and big but quite affordable at 800 USD new and maybe less used. focus is a bit slow for a pro lense but still it's a fine lense
Nikon 70-200 Vr very expensive but great IQ and VR
maybe adding a 50mm prime lense to your collection 1.8 or 1.4 depending on how much you want to pay can give you better IQ when you have the time to zoom by going closer ot farther...
In the end each one of us has a different lense arsenal and that heavily depends on use and style of photography so you'll have to make that decision on your own.
To add one factor about the 18-200Vr is that its much heavier thant he 18-50 and might not balance fine on your D90 so your camera will be front heavy when you have it pending with the strap on your neck...
keep us posted on what you chose and your observations afterwards

 

[smb2]

I would agree with maroun. The 18-200 is a VR lens and IMHO is a great all purpose, if you just are carrying one, lens. Sell both kit lenses and get the NEW 18-200 [gold vs. red VR on the barrel] as the old models have a problem with the "zoom" slipping with gravity.
The 18-200 is not bad as far as weight on the D90 and I think you would be very happy with that combo. Less lens changing means less dirt on the sensor.
All the faster lenses [2.8] are beautiful glass but are expensive and much heavier. You might want to grow into those.
For tank shots, look into used 105 or 60mm micro lenses. The old 105 is a nice lens and
with the new 105VR you may find some good deals.

 

[BlueCorn]

Less lens changing means less dirt on the sensor.

A bit.

An awful lot of what ends up on the sensor actually starts inside of the camera. You could never change lenses and you're still going to get sensor dust.

 

[maroun.c]

Beerguy,
Is that inside the camera or inside the lens?
I've previously heard that zooming in and out might introduce dust through the lens tot he sensor as some zooms are not perfectly sealed, however this is the first time I hear that dust in the camera moves to the sensor, any explanation to that?
One last thing about the 18-200 VR, eventhough its not the sharpest and fastest zoom out there it's not such a bad quality one. So what if it's a bit soft on the edges, a little unshrp filter and it's fine. Think of it this way I'd rather have the shot even if a bit soft than not have it at all... To add to that the 18-200 VR was a lens to fight to get for months. While release price was 675 USD if I remember correctly people paid 900+ USD to get it and still had to be on 3 months waiting list. I really don't remember people rushing on a zoom lense that much. then few eyars later much more performing bodies like the D300 D700 and others were out and those clearly outperformed it so people started complaining about it. The fact that it sold as kit lense on the D300 also didn't help much. think of it this way all other lenses being cosidered 18-50 and 55-200Vr would also be outperformed by newer bodies. Really not trying to push you into buying the 18-200 which in the end you might not like the wieght or IQ it gives or even the size that's why I tell you the best thing would be to rent or borrow one and try it.

 

[BlueCorn]

Beerguy,
Is that inside the camera or inside the lens?
I've previously heard that zooming in and out might introduce dust through the lens tot he sensor as some zooms are not perfectly sealed, however this is the first time I hear that dust in the camera moves to the sensor, any explanation to that?

Zooming, and focusing can introduce dust. There are also particles created from wear inside the mirror box. When the sensor is energized, it actually develops a static charge, attracting anything that's loose in the area.

 

[zlwags85]

I had the 18-55mm kit lens and purchased a 55-200 VR lens. Used them both for 6 months and decided that I hate carrying lenses everywhere all the time and I don't want to change lenses all that often. I sold both at a fairly cheap price to move them and recovered about a 1/3 of the cost of the 18-200. I'm really happy with the lens overall. It's a very convenient piece of glass. However, I do plan on getting 2-3 more specialty lenses (i.e. Macro, super wide, and a fast prime). The only downfall I see to the lens is the price and it has the same aperture range as the 18-55 and 55-200 combined. As long as you plan on having decent light, I think it's pretty good.

One other thing to note is that if you don't have a shoe mount or better flash, there is shadowing when zoomed past about 180mm. That is on my D60 body. Not sure on if this would be the case or not for a D90.

-zach

 

[luisgo]

Another alternative is the 18-105mm which comes with the D90 kit. I have that lens with my D60. Not as expensive as the 18-200mm. I have the 55-200 and never use it. I hate carring two lenses.