Nikon 18-200 upgrade

[Anteaus]

I'm certain this comparison has been made into oblivion, but I'm curious if it's worth the money to upgrade from my 18-105mm kit lens to the 18-200mm. I know that the 18-200 is of higher build quality and overall the preferable lens from what i've read, so that's not really in question so I'm this is a primarily a value versus price issue.

Is it worth the $850? If I didn't already have the 18-105mm it would not be a question.

 

[radhak]

If I were in your position (18-105 already in bag, $900 burning a hole in my wallet, looking for a 200mm reach), I'd get a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 (Nikon, not Sigma, etc) from Craigslist; I've seen them advertised every so often at that price range.

At the lower reach of your lens, there'd be no difference in quality between the ones you have mentioned : good lenses, but neither is very fast. The higher price for the 18-200 is just because of the range of its focal length (ie, the 'all in one' or 'walk around' quality of a single lens).

At the same time, that wide a range has its own problems like weight and lens-creep. The 70-200 2.8 (or 80-200 2.8) on the other hand, would also be heavy, but boy, would that be worth it! You'd be able to use it for sports and low-light photography like you cannot imagine.

TLDR : save your money for better options; your 'upgrade' would not really be one. I know because I went that same route just last month, and ended up returning the 18-200 (of course, in my case I also realized I could not afford that money!).

 

[Syborg1211]

What do you normally shoot? What are you unhappy about with the 18-105? Everyone (myself included) gets it into their head that the kit lenses are crap and just start looking for an aimless upgrade, but without knowing what you want to see improved from your kit lens to your new lens, we can't help decide what you should get.

For example, if you say you shoot mostly landscape shots and most of your shots end up near the wide-end of the lens, then I might suggest you look at either a dedicated ultra-wide lens (Such as the Tokina 11-16mm) or something like the 16-85mm, which those extra 2 mm at the wide end do make a good difference, especially if you never use the range from 85 to 105 as is. If you say you want more reach for more zoomed shots, then maybe the 18-200 is the way to go, unless you're talking about something like bird watching or action shooting where the 18-200 doesn't have the aperture or autofocus speed for such shots.

Indoors versus outdoors makes a huge difference too because you'll want wider apertures for indoors.

 

[Anteaus]

Actually I'm generally pleased with my 18-105. I was just wondering if the build quality, VRII and extra range were worth the cash. I want to use it for travel. I have my 35 1.8 that I love for low light and general use, but obviously it's of limited use when I'm farther from the subject.

I think you guys make some good points. I'll probably just stay with the 18-105 and not worry about it unless it breaks or something.

 

[Silenus]

If you really really want the biggest range possible in one lens you might consider it. However...the 18-105 is already quite a good amount of range in one lens. You might find that the difference between 105 and 200mm is not as much as you think...especially at closer focus distances where the 18-200 focus breathing becomes more apparent.

Secondly...while the 18-200 would have better build quality...it is NOT better optically than your 18-105. The 18-105 will be equal or better optically throughout it's range. Also the VR in both the same in effectiveness.

In short I would say it's not worth it. The 18-105 and the 35/1.8 are a great versatile pair. If you want something long, I'd look to the 55-300 VR, or better the 70-300 VR, or BEST the 70-200 f/2.8 VR radhak mentions! I have the 70-200 myself and it is everything it's cracked up to be!

 

[Anteaus]

I pretty much came to the conclusion you did but I guess deep down I really "wanted" to justify the expensive of the 18-200, but I completely agree with you. Thanks!

 

[blastingcap]

Also the VR in both the same in effectiveness

No. 18-200VR has the better version of VR; the 18-105 has the cheaper form that is 1 stop worse. By the way there is almost no difference between the "VR I" and "VR II" Nikon lenses; they use the same VR parts and only differ in that the "VR II" version has a locking mechanism for 18mm and supposedly better coatings though in testing they are virtually identical. Nikon really really really pissed me off when they did that marketing stunt and moved the "II" next to the VR to con unsuspecting buyers into thinking that the "VR II" version had more advanced VR than the "VR I" version. It does not. It killed the resale value of my "VR I" 18-200mm for no reason other than marketing.