Nikon 18-200mm or 55-200mm or 70-300mm or..

K

kenm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
284
Name
Ken
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all, I think I need some advice.

A bag-full of Nikon D7000, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 70-200/f2.8, Nikon 18-70mm, flash, and other bits and bobs was getting a bit heavy for lugging around, so I got a smaller case with room for a body and a couple of lenses and started taking out just the body, 18-70mm and 10-20mm. This is much better. However I’m missing the telephoto end and want to do something about it.

First thought was to get the Nikon 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6 VR2 and take it and the 10-20mm around. Then I got to thinking that the 18-200mm was a lot of money for something that may not actually be as good (I’m a bit fussy about sharpness) as the 18-70mm plus the rather cheap and light 55-200mm. After all I don’t use the 10-20mm that much, and if I do want to use it, I usually know in advance. Problem solved and around £450 saved. Next I start thinking that if I am going to get the 55-200mm, I might as well get the 55-300, since it gives me something I don’t already have with that extra 100mm. From there it is not much of leap to start wondering if the Nikon 70-300 f/4.6-5.6G is the best bet. The only slight downside of this is that it looks a bit long to fit in the case attached to the body, but it is no big deal to re-attach the shorter lens for storage. I’m also wondering if this lens will usurp that big Sigma, which I got mainly for motorsport?

Or I could go back to plan A and just get the 18-200. Anybody have any opinions? Are there any other options I should be thinking about?

Thanks.
 
First i personally won't get the 55-200 or the 55-300 simply not because they are bad. Those a cheap Nikon tele zoom, it is an ok lens. You not gonna get the sigma 70-200 performance on those lens.

The D7000 is a good camera and with good glass this camera can shine.

I've not heard many bad thing about the Nikon 18-200 VR infact i heard and see many good thing with the lens. As a walk around lens etc this lens is fantastic plus the VR is a big plus.

If you thinking about getting this 18-200 VR then sell that 18-70 because most likely you will use this lens more than anything.

The nikon 70-300 VR is also another fantastic lens to use, so if you decide to get that then keep the 18-70 simply to cover the range.

That Sigma 10-20 is useful so might worth holding on that till you absolute sure about selling it.

Personally i will go for the 18-200 VR
 
I personally don't think the Nikon 18-200 VR heavy compare to the Sigma 70-200 you got.

One lens that can cover pretty much a long focal range with that weight, it is light.

The Nikon 24-70 or the 28-70 f2.8 is what we call the heavy beast.

If i don't need the ultra wide 10-20 i can use that 18-200 VR all day without a problem.
 
18-200 is the lens I will use when travelling. The image it produces are pretty good and it cover most of the range I would likely to use while travelling.
 
Thanks for the replies.

badboy1984 said:
First i personally won't get the 55-200 or the 55-300 simply not because they are bad. Those a cheap Nikon tele zoom, it is an ok lens. You not gonna get the sigma 70-200 performance on those lens.
Click to expand...

You're right, I doubt I had any intention of getting the 55-200mm or 55-300mm - I was more describing the thought process that makes it a choice between the 18-200mm or 70-300mm. If I didn't own any lenses already it would be a no-brainer, 18-200mm would be the answer.

But the fact I already have the 18-70mm means that getting the 18-200mm will cost me £600 for something I already have (although granted my Sigma is useless as a walkabout lens) whereas the 70-300mm will cost me less and give me more when combined with the 18-70mm. And if the image quality accross the 18-200 range is going to be better with the 18-70mm + 70-300mm, and taking into account that I am rubbish at selling things I don't need, that combo is very attractive.

I have no problem with the weight either of the 18-200mm or the 118-70mm and 70-300mm combined, with both choices weighing less than that Sigma.

If I decide on the 18-200mm route I also need to consider the alternative offerings from Tamron etc.
 
Last edited:
If you happy to take 1-3 lens out, then the 70-300 VR make sense.

Sigma 10-20, 18-70 and 70-300 is pretty good.

Depend weather you need the ultra wide otherwise you probably won't even need to bring the sigma 10-20 out.

with the 18-70 and 70-300 you can always sell the 18-70 and replace it with something else like 24-70 (28-70) or the 17-55 without a problem.

Either lens you mention is good.
 
kenm said:
I’m also wondering if this lens will usurp that big Sigma, which I got mainly for motorsport?

Or I could go back to plan A and just get the 18-200. Anybody have any opinions? Are there any other options I should be thinking about?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

What do you take pictures of? What focal length do you find you're using the most? If you are doing motorsport then without spending silly money you're probably better off with the Sigma, or if you need more reach, the 70-300.:shrug:
 
Wookee said:
What do you take pictures of? What focal length do you find you're using the most? If you are doing motorsport then without spending silly money you're probably better off with the Sigma, or if you need more reach, the 70-300.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Landscapes, architecture, mechanical things, while in walkabout mode. Seldom people or portraits unless family business requires it.

I bought the Sigma as an affordable means of shooting motorsport and it is fine for that but too big for walkabout, so while not doing what I bought it for I prefer to leave it behind. This is another reason why I am drawn towards the 70-300mm - the 18-200 will not give me anything over the Sigma for motorsport purposes (I think), whereas the 70-300 might, and since I will own both lenses I can compare and make my own mind up. Or use them both.

Badboy1984 has pretty much told me what I want to hear, which is that I would not be considered a straightjacket-case for considering using an elderly kit lens with a pretty up-to-date camera while the nice 18-200mm is an option.

I don't mind carrying 1-3 lenses for walkabout stuff, so long as one of them isn't that big Sigma.
 
I'm on the same boat with you to behonest, i don't bring my big sigma 70-200 f2.8 out anymore, that just sits at home unless i got jobs or wild life to do.

I considering 70-300 VR myself in the future but atm i building some prime collection :)
 
KenM, same as me. I find the Nikor 18-200 very versatile. A the 200mm stage, things get a little soft and TBH even with VR, its tricky. It lives on a D5000 and I use it mainly for landscapes, architecture, vehicles and as a pseudo Macro. Its a one trick lens thats "reasonable for everything". I

My main interest is landscapes and buildings, and the 10-20mm is worth having IMHO as well. The 10-20 lives on a D80 as I saw it going cheap and couldn't resist the it.
 
The 55-200 is an outstanding lens and highly underrated... And small... And cheap...
 
badboy1984 said:
I'm on the same boat with you to behonest, i don't bring my big sigma 70-200 f2.8 out anymore, that just sits at home unless i got jobs or wild life to do.

I considering 70-300 VR myself in the future but atm i building some prime collection :)
Click to expand...

Oh yes, primes. Yet another reason for the 70-300mm- it leaves enough money to get a 35mm f/1.8 prime before hitting the cost of the 18-200mm, or spend an extra £100 for the f/2. While I doubt I will go back to film, I might go full frame eventually....

This is a nice place, thanks again for the advice.
 
i got the 35mm f1.8G and i can tell you the lens is super sharp and is value for money. Nice FOV on crop camera too.

If i only can take one prime out with me the 35mm f1.8G is the only one.
 
stokes said:
The 55-200 is an outstanding lens and highly underrated... And small... And cheap...
Click to expand...

What he said. If you want just a versatile walkabout, get rid of the 18-70, leave the rest at home, and shoot the 18-200. If you just want to add a little bit to your existing walkabout set, then the 55-200 is tough to beat. It isn't much bigger than the 18-70, doesn't weigh anything, and is practically free second hand. And yes it does give you something over the sigma- a lighter lens that you'll actually use.

Rick
 
28-300..........:thumbs:
 
Well, thanks all for the advice, a decision has been reached. Surprisingly, and despite coming very close to getting the 18-200mm, I am about to order the 55-200mm for the miserly sum of £134.99.

Reasoning? Back in the film days I lugged around a 28mm, a 35-70mm and an 80-200mm. I don’t recall too many missed shots due to lens changing, and by using the 55-200mm for a while alongside the 18-70mm I can work out what I use most and what would be most useful to upgrade. If the 18-70mm gets most of the use, which I suspect it might, I can replace that with a 16-85mm, or a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, or even that rather nice Nikon 17-55mm. If I wind up cursing missed shots due to lens-changing, I can get rid of them both and get the 18-200mm in the knowledge that I am doing the right thing.

If this turns out to be a mistake, at least it will be a cheap mistake, and I can go into round two knowing better what I really want and need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top