(18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II + 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR) OR 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED ?

[dolphin]

Hi guys , I hesitate between these to options for my first lens (lenses) ... What do you think - which lens should I buy ?

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1033/cat/13)
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1088/cat/13)

or

Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/993/cat/13)

Thank you in advance !

[K1W1]

What camera do you have?
What is your level of experience?
What sort of things do you photograph?
What are your expectations?
Do you generally make decisions based on totally uninformed and in most cases biased advice from strangers on the Internet?

Sorry to be so blunt but really this is one of the silliest threads I have ever seen on the Internet.

[dolphin]

What camera do you have?

Please read my post more carefully ;)



What sort of things do you photograph?


Everything !



Do you generally make decisions based on totally uninformed and in most cases biased advice from strangers on the Internet?


wow - are there such kind of people ?!

[K1W1]

Sorry about the what camera.

You will find plenty of threads on this an other forums about lenses and what they can and can't do.
You can go to places like Flickr or Smugmug or Pbase and search for photos taken by your camera and the lenses you are after. You can then see the results of probably thousands of real images and see what the combinations are capable of and then you can make up your own mind.
Posting the question you have in the way of a Poll will just give you random conflicting answers with no basis for you to compare.
You must get out an do your research and a poll like this is not research and will not give you meaningful answers.
Now, by all means if you have specific queries about what you can or can't do or what lenses would be better in what circumstance there are plenty of people here who will willingly help you.

[dolphin]

K1W1 OK , I appreciate your advice but anyway I want to hear more opinions !

[Rooz]

wait for the 18-55VR if possible and then get the 18-55vr/ 55-200vr combo.

without knowing what you shoot though, its difficult to know if any of those options are good for you. which is what i think kiwi was elluding to.

[rawpaw18]

Seems you are comparing convienence to reach.
It will be personal preference, based on your style of
shooting.
I would prefer the more range that two lenses
offer rather than convienence of one. Thats just me though.

Welcome to the forum.

[XaiLo]

What they said! But I'm going to join Kiwi... a lot about photography is based on personal preference and experience. When an individual asks what amounts to be a personel preference question. how can that be answered unless you know something of the individual. If a person has no experience with an SLR it's even woarse you are being asked to play the role of fortune teller b/c the person asking the question doesn't even know the answer. So again without sufficient ground work being done the questions are futile to say the least. Where, how, and what, a person shoots or will shoot makes a difference. We can't leave out budget either there's a reason behind all the glass that's available out there. So a what's best for me question without knowing the me is a meaningless question b/c one will replace the me with themselves 9 out of 10 times. Which has at least a 50% chance of being wrong. then buy the end of the post there's a war going on about who's right... now it's time for me to go lmao. Happy Holidays.

[LR Max]

18-200VR.

Fin.

Yes, you'll have to pay an extra couple $$$ but its worth it. Almost all of my friends have this lense and it is the one they use 95% of the time. Its probably the most versitile lense and most everyone I know has one.

I assure you, its worth it.

[dolphin]

18-200VR.

Fin.

Yes, you'll have to pay an extra couple $$$ but its worth it. Almost all of my friends have this lense and it is the one they use 95% of the time. Its probably the most versitile lense and most everyone I know has one.

I assure you, its worth it.



Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/129/cat/13)
+
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/13)

This better option for another extra couples - don`t you think :)

Now seriously - 18-200VR is about 400$ more expensive and it will stay only dream for now ...

[XaiLo]

Must be that new math :rolleyes: lol $700 vs $3000 plus a second body


Sorry to be so blunt but really this is one of the silliest threads I have ever seen on the Internet.

I am beginningto see the :eek: light... lmao

[LR Max]

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/129/cat/13)
+
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/13)

This better option for another extra couples - don`t you think :)

Now seriously - 18-200VR is about 400$ more expensive and it will stay only dream for now ...

I think this is the mac daddy combo, IMO. However, a *couple* is an understatement. The 18-200VR costs less than HALF of the 70-200VR.

I have a couple of friends with D40 cameras. They all saw the 18-200VR in action and have either acquired it or plan on procuring this lens. Most other nikonians I know of either own this lens, want to own this lens, or have the above combo and already have outclassed this lens.

So I figure, pay the extra couple hundred bucks, cut the crap, and get the step down from the combo listed about (combo above costs roughly 3k new).