Super Zoom or normal Zooms

J

jhock

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
So this I am afraid, is what would you do question, sorry!

So I have a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens and Nikon 55-200mm, both VR.

If I was to sell them and get a Sigma or Tamron 18-200 am I going notice a drop in quality? I can't afford a Nikon 18-200mm at present.

I am just think why have 2 when 1 lens will do the job? It is not like either of lens are fast lenses, I have Nikon 35mm f1.8 for that job and it is really very good.

Just wondering if any one has done something similar ?
 
I was always against superzooms, thinking a selection of primes/short zooms would always provide better IQ and that's all that mattered.

Then I got the Nikon 18-300 and realised that a few % here are there in MTF charts doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and the convenience of a superzoom is invaluable. Selling my TAmron 17-50 and sticking with a 35 1.8 for low light, and 18-300 for everything else.
 
The Nikon 18-200 VR is a cracking lens to use. They going for around £350-400 used so you might want to consider that. I've not tried the Sigma/Tamron super zoom but i heard it wasn't that great (should say is alright but nothing fancy).
 
I have been looking at the Tamron, they go for about £170 new, the Sigma seem to have stopped there one and now do a 18-250 instead which is about £400.

Spoke to one shop about P/X they have offered £50 on the kit lens and about £80 on the 55-200mm, does that seem fair?
 
that seems very low IMO, i went the same route and trying to sell my 55-200mm for £115 at the moment. (2 days so far, no takers though :( )


i had 18-55mm, 55-200mm both VR and 35mm f1.8. had a re-think and came to the same conclusion as you: why have 2 when 1 will do.

used Nikkor 18-200mm for a while, it really is an amazing lens. at 18-70mm range, it is MUCH MUCH better than the other 2 lenses. at 135mm it's not as good as 55-200, at 200mm it's just as good as the normal zoom. VR is much better than the kit lens, AF speed is also much quicker, full time AF override and distance meter are nice extras.

downside though is the weight, it unbalances my D3100. requiring a second hand to hold the lens. there is also zoom creep between 135 and 24mm, it's not a problem at shortest 18mm so not a massive problem when walking about with it.


do look for 2nd hand Nikkor 18-200mm, they can't be beaten for value.
 
The used VR 1 version is slightly cheaper then the new VR 2. They both exactly the same lens and same optic except the VR is slightly different. VR 2 use the newer nikon VR system but the VR1 still just as good as the VR2.
 
Looks like no one is fan of the Tamron lens then?
 
i believe both are VR2, both have normal/active VR switch. difference between mk2 and mk1 is that mk2 has a zoom lock at 18mm to prevent zoom creep.

but mk1 doesn't zoom creep at 18mm anyway.
 
Yes my mistake you are right about both version uses the second gen nikon VR. The mk1 has the red VR label and the mkii has the gold VR label.
 
i'd love a great all-rouder, 18-200, 250, 270, 300 etc

I still haven't seen a review that raves about them, although there is a brand new sigma one that is getting good press

I've been put off by lenses that try to do too much, the canon 17-85 IS for example that is horrible in my opinion when shooting wide, it's almost fisheye!
I've heard okay things about some of the tamron lenses.
 
jhock said:
Looks like no one is fan of the Tamron lens then?
Click to expand...

A two lens option is probably always going to get you better critical image quality including less distortion than a one lens solution plus with two lenses you'll probably get a wider aperture.

However, the best lens is the one you have with you and that gets the shot so if you feel you'll use a superzoom more then go for it as long as you know that you may have a more restricted aperture range and possibly less critical image quality. But, if you are less of a pixel peeper and more of an appreciator of whole images you may still be happy.

I used to have a Siggy 28-300mm and although it wasn't a fantastic lens when measured against my fast primes it did make a great general purpose day out and holiday lens.
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
I still haven't seen a review that raves about them, although there is a brand new sigma one that is getting good press
Click to expand...

the 18-200mm gets fantastic reviews, excellent pretty much any setting, well, except at 135mm.

the distortion can be fixed in most PP software these days, so it's not a problem.

i'm a believer of fewer higher quality lenses is better in every way than a bag full of cheaper zoom lenses. so replacing a kit lenses with the high quality 18-200mm should actually get you better results. i know i did going from kit lens to Nikkor 18-200mm.
 
wuyanxu said:
...the distortion can be fixed in most PP software these days, so it's not a problem.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, not 100% anyway... Distortion can be corrected to a degree but not having to do it or at least doing as little as possible is IMVHO always better.

It all comes down to what you are willing to accept. If the one lens solution will get you more shots and you can live with the compromises then it's the way to go but you shouldn't be under the illusion that the compromises can be completely corrected post capture as that's only true to a degree.
 
You really can't compare the 55-200mm to tamron or sigma super zooms, the only thing they have going for them is convenience.

The 55-200mm is better compared to the £1700 70-200mm.

For optical quality I'd be using either Nikon 18-55mm & 55-200mm or better yet the 18-200mm (superb lens, the only thing is, 200mm isn't rally 200mm, its more like 180mm).

If IQ is outweighed by convenience in your photography then perhaps the cheaper makes are suited.

Whatever you decide I hope you enjoy it.
 
I have decided to postpone any new lenses until I get back from holiday. I am going to take all 3 lenses with me and see how I get on. I have just about got room, going motorcycle touring in Northen Spain but have got a camera bag insert that turns my tank bag into rather nice camera bag which will fit all 3 lenses, camera, charger etc.

I will see what I use the most and decide what to do when I get back, the general consensus seems to be the Tamron is not great and the Nikon is the one to go for, so a bit more saving required. Second hand the MK1 seems to go for around £360 (18-200mm), so not too bad.

If I find I only use the 18-55mm I might get an f2.8 version of that instead (not Nikon as they mega money).

Thanks for all the advise guys and girls.
 
i suggest Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to replace the 18-55. The 18-55 will struggle if you want to use CPL filter.
 
jhock said:
Spoke to one shop about P/X they have offered £50 on the kit lens and about £80 on the 55-200mm, does that seem fair?
Click to expand...

As a PX - remembering the shop needs to turn a small profit when selling the lenses on - I'd say those prices look fair. You'll get more for them (although not much) by selling privately bu the PX route guarantees you'll get rid of both at the same time.

Did you also ask the shop what they'll give you off the lens you're going to buy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top