18-200mm VR lens or both 18-55mm VR lens and 55-200 VR lens?

[dillonjames56]

Hi everyone,

I've only joined this forum in the last two weeks, am a total DSLR novice, and have a question to ask.

Recently bought myself a Nikon D5000 camera, body only, after a lot of researching and am now looking at buying the lense/s.

Should I spend the extra money and get a 18-200mm VR lens or buy the two separate newer lenses, the 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR lenses?

Appreciate your opinions

[OsmosisStudios]

The 18-200 is actually newer than both the 18-55 and 55-200, but I'd actually recommend none.

If youre looking to spend the $800 for the 18-200 (thats what they go for here), then there are several places to start. As a good walkaround, I'd suggest the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR. Its not as long as the 18-200, but it's wider and provides better image quality. It'll eat up most of your budget, but it's a better lens. With what's left, get a 35mm f/1.8 and be done with it (for now at least)

[Shokinen]

I totally agree with Osmosis, the 16-85mm is a very versatile lens, the quality is very good (image and construction) but it's also expensive.

You can see a few examples on my Flickr (Link in my signatures).

[MTO4Life]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

As a good walkaround, I'd suggest the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR. Its not as long as the 18-200, but it's wider and provides better image quality. It'll eat up most of your budget, but it's a better lens.

Sorry to sort of hijak this thread, but it does apply as well.

Osmosis... I see you have the 18-70mm. I'm assuming that with the 16-85mm set at 70mm, it is slower than your 18-70mm at 70mm. Is this correct? Other than losing 2mm at the low end, would you say image quality is the same, better or worse than compared to the 16-85mm? I'm looking for a lens in that catagory (prefer Nikon) but can't afford the 17-55mm 2.8. I've been going back and looking at the 16-85mm over and over, but am not sure.

Thanks.

[radityopradipto]

I have a bit different opinion from you guys
I agree that 18-200 give more softer image than 16-85, definitely coz it has longer zoom range. I have 18-200 and I rarely used it right now...
However, 18-200 would still be useful, especially when you need an all in one lens for travelling light, or to avoid changing lens in unfriendly condition.
My suggestion is, get 18-55 and 55-200 if you don't bother changing lens, and get 18-200 if you prefer to sacrifice a bit of its quality for cleaner image sensor
I planned to replace some better lens that cover my 18-200 but still keep my 18-200 for some occasion

[dillonjames56]

Thanks for you opinions everyone.

Just a quick follow up question. Not sure at this stage if I will be turning photography into a hobby or not. I will be mainly using the camera for landscape and portrait shots while i'm on annual overseas holidays. Would the mentioned lenses be sufficient for this type of photography?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by MTO4Life

Sorry to sort of hijak this thread, but it does apply as well.

Osmosis... I see you have the 18-70mm. I'm assuming that with the 16-85mm set at 70mm, it is slower than your 18-70mm at 70mm. Is this correct? Other than losing 2mm at the low end, would you say image quality is the same, better or worse than compared to the 16-85mm? I'm looking for a lens in that catagory (prefer Nikon) but can't afford the 17-55mm 2.8. I've been going back and looking at the 16-85mm over and over, but am not sure.

Thanks.

@70mm, the 18-70 is faster, no doubt. It's a 3.5-4.5 lens, which means at 70mm its f/4.5. The 16-85, on the other hand, is already an f/5.6 at 70mm, so it's almost a full-stop difference. That being said, the ideal would be the VR system from the 16-85 in the 18-70 lens. Image quality between the two is an arguable point. Some say one os better than the other, and others say the opposite. From my limited testing (I don't own a 16-85), the 18-70 is sharper and has better contrast from one end to the other. I've had merchants try to upsell me from my 18-70 to a 16-85. I tell them to get stuffed.

Originally Posted by radityopradipto

I have a bit different opinion from you guys
I agree that 18-200 give more softer image than 16-85, definitely coz it has longer zoom range. I have 18-200 and I rarely used it right now...
However, 18-200 would still be useful, especially when you need an all in one lens for travelling light, or to avoid changing lens in unfriendly condition.
My suggestion is, get 18-55 and 55-200 if you don't bother changing lens, and get 18-200 if you prefer to sacrifice a bit of its quality for cleaner image sensor
I planned to replace some better lens that cover my 18-200 but still keep my 18-200 for some occasion

I'll admit: there are times when a single-lens is preferable. The thing is, the 16-85 covers most of the range of the 18-200 and does a considerably better job at it. If you really want to get picky, the ideal would be the 16-85+70-300, both with VR. Gives you longer range and better IQ all around.

Originally Posted by dillonjames56

Thanks for you opinions everyone.

Just a quick follow up question. Not sure at this stage if I will be turning photography into a hobby or not. I will be mainly using the camera for landscape and portrait shots while i'm on annual overseas holidays. Would the mentioned lenses be sufficient for this type of photography?

The 18-200 is a fine for all-around, but for anything specialized, you'd benefit from specialized equipment. That being said, I have both landscapes and portraits taken with an 18-200 that are quite nice: theyre just not as good as they could be.

Like I said, I'd stick to the 18-55+55-200 or similar, add a fast prime (for portraits) and maybe an ultrawide for landscapes if you find that 18 just isnt cutting it.