Alternatives to the Nikon 18-200 VR?

tmnt

tmnt

King of Australia
I keep coming back to the nikon 18-200 VR but was wondering if there are any other zooms in the same range in image quality and overall goodness.

** Lens must have image stabilization.
** Must be 18-200 or 18-250 (that's as long as they come from and 18mm start, isn't it?).

1. I was talking to a camera dealer the other day who said there was a new zoom in this range coming out with image stabilization from Tamron I believe. Anyone have a link to it?

2. I know the Nikon 18-200 VR is still pretty new, there's no successor due anytime soone is their?

Will be using with my D80.

Thanks

Ian
 
This might not do what you are looking for, but I'm looking at the 70-300mm VR. Will most likely be getting one in the next week or 2. It is a little cheaper than the 18-200 and along with your kit lens will give you a little longer overall range. Plus it is an FX lens so it will still work if you ever get an F100 or a D3! ;)

Cost about $450 on a good day and I've seen some used ones in really good condition sell for sub $400.

Ken Rockwell and I differ in our opinion about this lens. He is very gun-hoe about the 18-200 VR, even though he says the 70-300 is pretty much better in every test. I can understand the value in never having to change a lens, but I have a problem buying an "all around" lens for a SLR. They are made to have different lenses and if you wanted something for "all around" purposes I think you should get a P&S. I take my Sony P&S when I don't want to lug around my D40, and if I'm doing any real shooting I always have my bag loaded to the gills.
 
As far as Tamron goes , it is an off camera brand, which typically performes worse than on camera brands such as Nikon. I see the benefit of an all around lens for certain run and gun situation but just realize that the quality wont compare to a a good set of lenses
 
For whatever it's worth (not much), all my headshots are done with the 70-300, just a follow-up to Dan's suggestion. However I know nothing about the 18-200, so I'm not a good judge.

Good luck!

www.zampanophoto.com
 
Yeah Alveraz your shots are great. I'll have a good think about the 70-300 but I really would like 1 main lense if I go out a walkin'. Wish their was an 18-250 Nikon VR that extra 50mm would make a world of difference.

So no-ones heard of the new Tamron?
 
Sigma makes an optically stabilized 18-200 that is about $150-$200 cheaper than the Nikon. I have only handled it and shot with it once and wasn't impressed.

That being said that I am not a fan of the lord of the zooms (one lens to rule them all) anyway.
 
Get the Nikon lens. The 18-200vr has been a great selling lens. A great walking around lens and I'm sure able to get some pro pictures,.

I have a 80-200VR and a 17-55 Nikon lens. There are days I wish I had just one lens to carry around instead of those two. If I was going to I would get the 80-200VR. I still might get one. Just a great range and the VR is awesome.
 
i would get the 17-55 myself though it doesn't have VR. But i can't afford either of those lenses anyways... i use a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and it works out just fine for much less money. I've read good things about the Tamron 17-50 but i don't like the build quality.
 
The main reason why i don't like these "Monster Zoom" lenses is that they are terribly slow! I more or less just stick with either my 50mm f1.8 or 80-200mm f2.8 since the kit lens is waaay too slow for me. I suppose if all your shooting is in broad daylight it'd be fine, but i'd prefer low light flexibility. To that end, I really want the 28-70 f2.8 zoom from nikon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top