18-200mm nikor...

[acoleman]

I've seen some people say that the 18-200mm lens has replaced a lot of their old ones and they hardly ever take it off their camera. Is this true with any of you guys? I'm buying a d5000 soon and am debating over whether to buy the kit lens then buy some additional "cheaper" ones later, (possibly a 35mm and 70-300mm) or just buy the 18-200mm and let that be it for awhile. I'm a college student and need to save money the best I can but I also want to do this right! What do you guys think would be the best option?

[OsmosisStudios]

The 18-200 is CONVENIENT, but not the best performer. If your goal is to have better than a compact image quality with similar convenience, then the 18-200 is good. If your goal is ultimate image quality, don't bother with it.

That being said, some people have both the 18-200 and other lenses as well. Not the most economical, though.

[kirbinster]

Who ever said photography was economical

The 18-200 is a great lens because it covers such a wide range -- with it you will almost never have the wrong lens for that once in a lifetime shot. But as Just said it is not a super sharp lens, but sometimes technical image sharpness is not the most important thing. I love mine, but as you can see I have lots of technically better glass. I leave that lens on the camera when I don't have specific shooting plans because of its range. If I have plans to shoot something specific I will usually take a lens that better suits that task.

[acoleman]

The main thing I'll be using from the lens would be the zoom feature, because I really don't think the kit lens is going to get me in close enough to sports and stage performances which will be my main focus. Does anyone have any better examples of a telephoto lens that would give me some good pictures in these situations? $500 or under preferably... thanks guys!

[kirbinster]

Sure, the Nikone 70-300VR will do a better job zooming you in. You can pick them up on the lightly used market for around $400.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by acoleman

The main thing I'll be using from the lens would be the zoom feature, because I really don't think the kit lens is going to get me in close enough to sports and stage performances which will be my main focus. Does anyone have any better examples of a telephoto lens that would give me some good pictures in these situations? $500 or under preferably... thanks guys!

If you're going to be dealing with sports especially, you'll really want a faster lens than either the 18-200 or the slower 70-300. Something that goes to f/2.8, like one of the several 70-200's out there, might be better. But booooy are they expensive!

That said, yes, the 18-200 is massively convenient because of its huge range. But if you expect to need to push your zoom as far out as it can go, the 18mm end really won't matter. So why not go for something as long as you can? 70-300 would be the minimum, or 80-400 even. Or you could even get a long 300 or 400mm prime. Again, these all cost money, but that's the unfortunate nature of lenses. Don't buy the wrong lens for the job just because it's cheaper -- save up and do without until you can get the right one.

[kirbinster]

Does not sound like the budget will allow a fast long lens. That said, you can take good pictures with either of the two lenses we are talking about - you might have to push the ISO on some shots. It also depends on what type of sports we are talking about. Here are a bunch I took with the 18-200, which had a polarizer on it which further slows it down:







This was at ISO=1250

[Moments that Click]

Acoleman

As an owner of this lens I agree with much of what has been said above. While the lens is not the ultimate in sharpness it is still a good lens and it has received some good reviews on review sites like Ken Rockwell.

A plus that immediately comes to mind is it's "all around walk about and travel convenience" as you have a VERY wide range that can be covered without having to stop and swap lenses which is sometimes not optional in these situations (I have been in some areas where I wasn't even comfortable displaying my dslr with the 18-200 let alone opening my bag and displaying other goodies to onlookers and allowing my gear to be potentially compromised while focusing on swapping the lens).

A big negative for me with this lens though is the ability to achieve good "bokeh" or depth of field. You really need to work at it in order to get satisfying results where an entire background needs to be blurred, this seems to be mostly due to the fact that the lens is capable of shooting so wide (18).

I feel it's a good lens for the money (convenience, wide angle, good range, VR and good sharpness) but be aware that it does have limitations when purchasing (not very fast, poor bokeh and not the ultimate in sharpness)

Hope this helps.

[acoleman]

Okay thanks for all the replies guys!! The baseball pictures looked great, and baseball is what I'll be shooting too. Thanks a lot guys!!

[acoleman]

Is the 70-300mm sharper than the 18-200?

I also saw that the 18-200mm zooms 11 times and the 70-300mm only zooms 4.3x... As I'm completely new to this, would someone mind explaining that? Will the 70-300 get me as close as the 18-200?