18-200VR or Something Else?

[Bear]

Hi All, I'm looking for some advice please. I currently have a D80 with an 18-135mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX lens that came in the kit. The lens is sharp, but I have really noticed some issues with chromatic aberration in certain situations, which is apparently a known fault.

It's a big birthday this year, and my family are treating me to a new D300s and a lens of my choice upto £550 to go with it. Lucky Me.
My daughter is off to Art College in September and I will probably give her the D80 to take with her.

Most of my photography is nature (close ups of flowers, insects (using Macro Filters)), landscapes, and some cityscape / photowalk shots. I'm really not into portraits much; an occasional one if I'm inspired, but I don't go looking for them.

So, having done some research on lenses I could get for the money, I have come up with a short list of four; all Nikkor:

• AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
• AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
• AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
• AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF

The 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR gets rave reviews by some, and slated by others. There are some issues with distortion that have been highlighted in some of the reviews I've read, simply because of the design compromises made to achieve the length of zoom. Unfortunately I've not had a chance to play with one although I have looked at quite a few images here and on Flickr. I'm not confident that the distortions that this lens has would be so easy to deal with in software, but there are a lot of you out there who have this lens and I'd be interested in your feedback please?

The 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR seems to be a good lens, with good optics and although would give me less range than I currently have, would possibly give me a better general purpose lens around which to build other, more spe******t lenses. Any thoughts or experience with this lens out there you would care to share?

The 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR is very inexpensive compared to the other two, and obviously there are some compromises here with distortion and chromatic aberration, albeit significantly less by all account than the 18-135 I currently use, and a plastic mount. One benefit of going this route is to be able to get the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR within the £550 budget. I appreciate that this can be a bit soft past 200mm, but it would give me the long reach needed for an occasional shot, and between 70-200 is supposed to be very good.

I'm torn between going the two lens route, knowing I'm making some real big compromises, or going for one good lens; and that's where I'm looking for some input please.

Well, there ends the diatribe! Any input gratefully received. Many thanks.

Regards
Barry

[kirbinster]

If you want length for nature I would highly suggest the 70-300VR, its a great value. I don't find mine to be soft at 300, and it is much much much sharper at 200mm than the 18-200VR.

[zephod]

Personally I'd probably go with the 16-85 and consider the sigma 105 2.8 micro. Seriously I would get a dedicated macro lens if that is your passion and from what I've read/heard/seen the sigma is no slouch in that department. I crunched the numbers and you'd be looking at approximately 120 pounds difference new and less than that if you found some used.

Doug

[inkista]

This is just me and my weirdo idiosyncratic way of thinking, but maybe hang onto the D80, buy your daughter a D5000 with the lens money, and blow the £1100 for the D300s on glass instead?

With £1100 in hand, you could get yourself the 105 Micro, and still have enough to get the 70-300VR. Or maybe a 12-24 for those wide vistas, and enough for a cheapish 50/1.8 so you can unleash your inner portrait photographer and revel in wide apertures for once.

To me, glass is always a better buy than a camera body because it depreciates a whole lot slower, and you'll use it a helluva lot longer. I tend to only look at camera bodies if all the lenses I want are more expensive than the cameras I'm eyeing. And I tend to see P&S cameras and walkaround zooms as swiss army knives: they're great for their versatility. But a dSLR system to me is more like a big red toolbox. Restricting yourself to a single walkaround zoom is rather like having a big red toolbox that's only got a swiss army knife in it. Different types of lenses extend the usability of the camera by leaps and bounds. A good wide-to-normal walkaround, a fast prime, and a telephoto zoom are, to me, a basic setup. Instead of trying to find another does-it-all-lens, maybe get a handful of job-specific lenses for the types of shooting you're doing the most.

Tip on the 70-300--stop it down to f/8. f/8 is the great equalizer across lenses.

[wannabephotographer]

I like my 18-200 but I do a lot of photojournalism. I find myself missing too many shots with my other lenses.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

This is just me and my weirdo idiosyncratic way of thinking, but maybe hang onto the D80, buy your daughter a D5000 with the lens money, and blow the £1100 for the D300s on glass instead?

Most schools require an in-body focus motor. I know the colleges around here require a D80 or D90 or better.

[Bear]

Thanks very much for the advice guys and girls,

Originally Posted by kirbinster

If you want length for nature I would highly suggest the 70-300VR, its a great value. I don't find mine to be soft at 300, and it is much much much sharper at 200mm than the 18-200VR.

I'd read how good it was up to 200, but it's nice to hear that it is good all the way to 300. Thanks.

Originally Posted by zephod

Personally I'd probably go with the 16-85 and consider the sigma 105 2.8 micro. Seriously I would get a dedicated macro lens if that is your passion and from what I've read/heard/seen the sigma is no slouch in that department. I crunched the numbers and you'd be looking at approximately 120 pounds difference new and less than that if you found some used.

That's a good idea; I hadn't considered a dedicated macro. Thanks. Now even more confusion!

Originally Posted by inkista

This is just me and my weirdo idiosyncratic way of thinking, but maybe hang onto the D80, buy your daughter a D5000 with the lens money, and blow the £1100 for the D300s on glass instead?

I was asked by my wife one day (in the normal flippant way that women do when they want to know something...) if I were to upgrade my camera, what would I go for; I said the D300s, not realising I was being set up. She told the family, and between them they went out and got it; so it's not an option to do a swap around. I just need a lens (or lenses) now.

Originally Posted by inkista

Tip on the 70-300--stop it down to f/8. f/8 is the great equalizer across lenses.

Thanks for the tip. Very useful to know.

Originally Posted by wannabephotographer

I like my 18-200 but I do a lot of photojournalism. I find myself missing too many shots with my other lenses.

Most of the stuff I do is not fast enough to have to worry too much about changing a lens. I wouldn't be fast enough if I had the lens on anyway!

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Most schools require an in-body focus motor. I know the colleges around here require a D80 or D90 or better.

She has to start with a film camera, so I've already given her my old Canon EOS1000FN, so she'll be good to go for the first couple of months, but all the college said was that she would need a digital after the first full term. Looking around when she went for her interview they seemed to go mostly for Canons (450D I think), but the lecturer had a Nikon and there was no "you must use" policy thankfully.