lens vs. lens

[bigticket]

i'm looking at 2 lens at the moment. 1. 18-135mm and 2. 55-200mm VR (both nikon lenses)

which one would be better for portraits/people shots/street photography? and will give me a better quality zoom...they're almost the same in price just don't know what to get. i already have a 18-55mm kit lens for my D40.

i'm leaning towards the 55-200mm VR...

suggestions?

[matthewchj]

Generally for street shots and outdoor portraits of random people on the street I prefer longer lenses, so I'd say get the 55-200... but the ultimate decision is yours.

[wulf]

How happy are you about changing lenses? For street photography, a wide angle focal length can be helpful to bring in more of a scene when space is tight (or you can't step far back without being run over!). The 18-135 doesn't go any wider than the kit lens but it would give you everything from wide-angle to more than enough zoom for everything except candid portraiture.

If you don't mind changing lenses when you hit the 55mm point and want to go up or down, the 55-200 has the advantage of zooming further and having the VR feature, which could give you a higher proportion of successful shots without a tripod when working in dull lighting.

Wulf

ps. I've not used either - I'm just going by the numbers on this one.

[NaturesPixel]

if this was me i would of not got the 18-55mm as teh quality is not all good i would prefer to have a longer reach of the 135 as a walk around lens.. and get teh 55-200as added zoom, but since you have the 18-55 i would get the 55-200 for the reach it gets :)

[ELAY]

Ken Rockwell's take on the 18-135 is here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-135.htm). I find he generally gives sensible advice pitched at ambitious amateurs.

One thing to consider is the relative speed of these lenses (ie. how low the f-stop goes). The 18-135 goes from f/3.5 at 18 to f/5.6 at 135. The 55-200 goes from f/4-5.6. This should mean that the 55-200 will be a bit faster (give you a bigger aperture) both at 55 and at 135 (though maybe not dramatically so), which means better low-light options.

There is of course a lovely 18-200 VR, but it is certainly too pricey for me.

EL

[bigticket]

thanks for the inputs! i'm also going for candid portraits and the 200mm would certainly give me a longer reach (plus having a VR doesn't hurt at all). also something i considered was the fact that if went for the 18-135mm lens, then my kit lens would practically be useless...unless i trade it in.

anyway thanks again!:D

[jdepould]

Regarding candids, I found this article (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html) to be insightful. As far as the choices, I haven't heard spectacular things about either lens. I would say hold off until you can trade in the 18-55 pick up the 18-200VR, which is a great walkaround lens.

[bigticket]

Regarding candids, I found this article (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html) to be insightful. As far as the choices, I haven't heard spectacular things about either lens. I would say hold off until you can trade in the 18-55 pick up the 18-200VR, which is a great walkaround lens.

I'm afraid the 18-200VR is a little bit too pricey for me. Although it would eliminate changing lenses all the time. I'm also reading a lot of reviews now re: the two lenses so i could make a good decision on this.

Thanks also for the link. :D