55-300mm or 18-200mm (in terms of focal length)

[view]

Dear all,

I am seeking your advise on buying new lenses. I have been using 18-105mm on my Nikon D90 for about 2 years, and I am happy with its results, however, I had times when I really needed more reach, even though not very often.

I definitely want to get an Ultra-wide lens, probably Nikon 10-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm. The thing that I am not sure about is whether to get the new 55-300mm or the 18-200mm, as a general/telephoto lens.

In both cases I don't want to use my current 18-105mm, as I would like to use only two lenses.

55-300mm will give me better reach, and the 18-200mm will be more versatile, as I can go out with only one lens when I'd like.

Your suggestions will be really appreciated.

Cheers,

[OsmosisStudios]

the 18-200 isnt a huge difference over your 18-105, and the image quality isn't as good either. I'd rule it out.

Instead, I'd opt between the 55-300 and 70-300 VR. both are good, and I'd almost wager that the 55-300 might be a tad sharper, though Ive yet to test both side by side.

[view]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

the 18-200 isnt a huge difference over your 18-105, and the image quality isn't as good either. I'd rule it out.

Instead, I'd opt between the 55-300 and 70-300 VR. both are good, and I'd almost wager that the 55-300 might be a tad sharper, though Ive yet to test both side by side.

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. Both lenses (55-300 & 18-200) are great for me in terms of image quality, the only thing that makes the choice a little bit difficult for me is the the focal length range difference. In other words, is the 100mm gain in 55-300 worth the lose of the better versatility in 18-200.

[RichardTaylor]

Just a thought.
If you can live with the IQ why not consider a Tamron 18-270
Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

or the Tamron 18-250
Tamron 18-250 Review: Full "hands on" review of the Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro

I have used the 18-250 On a Canon 40D and it is a fair, not great, one lens solution. I prefer to use at least two lenses to cover this focal length range.

[ravncat]

It`s a tad more than that - There`s alot of focal length breathing in the 18-200. (Focal length breathing, is a change in the focal length that is dependent on focus distance, lenses are marked at a focal distance of "infinity")

As a result, when you are focusing closer with the 18-200 at 200mm, you`ll find it behaves alot more like 130mm - when you focus at infinit at 200mm, it`ll be 200mm. I suspect the 70-300 and 55-300 will have focus breathing too - but it won`t be as bad as the 18-200, the extreme change in the 18-200 is part of its compromise design to cover such a vast range.

The 70-300 and 55-300 will also be much sharper at 200 than the 18-200 will be. - The current kit lenses - 18-55 and 55-200 optically outperform the 18-200. (But the 18-200 convenience is certainly nice)

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by view

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. Both lenses (55-300 & 18-200) are great for me in terms of image quality, the only thing that makes the choice a little bit difficult for me is the the focal length range difference. In other words, is the 100mm gain in 55-300 worth the lose of the better versatility in 18-200.

As ravncat explained, it's more than just the extra focal length of one and the versatility/convenience of the other. There are some rather serious image quality differences between the two.