Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christ Reynolds
Wish I could get my hands on the 18-200 VR. I was sick of the 50mm 1.8 D prime lens I had (very sharp, but 75mm equivalent is not wide enough for indoor stuff), so I bought the 18-55 3.5-5.6 zoom. It's a kit lens, so the quality isn't great, but I only paid about $100 for it. I'd replace everything with the 18-200 if I could get one. My D200 needs it as much as I do 
CJ |
Just go for a combo of some widezoom of your choice + 70-300VR instead. I'm hearing very nice things about the 70-300VR -- it's probably much better than the 18-200VR for the tele focal lengths. In fact, I'm even considering getting one for myself even though I already have some pretty good glass for tele, ie. 85 f/1.8, 180 f/2.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. And the 70-300VR is not a DX (crop) lens, so it'll be useable if Nikon should ever come out w/ an affordable FF body. BTW, I just bought a Nikon #6T close-up lens off eBay and would love to try it on that telezoom for (near macro) close-ups -- I'm not a macro enthusiast, but would love an inexpensive, easy way to add some good macro capability w/out lugging (and buying) extra lenses.
If the size doesn't suit you (and you don't need the extra reach), maybe go for the 55-200VR instead. Reports are a little bit more mixed w/ this one (probably due to greater variance in manufacturing quality for a cheap consumer lens), but most copies seem to be quite good and should certainly be better than most copies of the 18-200VR at the same focal lengths. Build quality is cheap as you can imagine, but what can you expect from a ~$250 consumer telezoom w/ VR?
For the price of the 18-200VR, you could easily have something like Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 + the 55-200VR (or even the 70-300VR, if you stretch the budget a bit).
_Man_