18-200 Tamron good enough to replace a 18-55 + 55-200 set?
Hey guys. Am I losing anything in regards to quality and effectiveness if I were to get a 18-200mm lens? I currently have a 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 zoom lens for my D5000.
Is it as simple as getting the 18-200 to cover them both and not have to keep switching between the two?
You will sacrifice some image quality if you go for a 18-200 lens. The lens offers a huge zoom range, but image quality will be compromised as a result. In my opinion, it's better to stick with a two lens sollution.
You would also lose some reach in the tele end. Most 18-200 lenses only go to 200 mm when you focus at infinity. At the minimum focus distance it may only go as far as 125 mm. Lenses with less reach suffer a lot less from this issue.
// Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 VR // Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8
// Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ...// Nikon SB-600
// Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6......// Nikon Series E 135 mm f/2.8
// Kiron 105 f/2.8 Macro....// Manfrotto 190XPROB + 488RC4
// Nikkor 35 f/1.8..........// Sigma 500 mm f/8
My website: http://www.dennisdolkens.nl
Prospero sums it all.
I'd go for 18-200 only for small prints or web posting images.
Nikon D90, D80
Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB
It depends on you, how much do you want optimal image quality.
You'll never get caught with the wrong lens on camera when you want to take a shot. Your shot's just not going to be as sharp or have as much contrast etc.
D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the previous posters, I'm going to play devil's advocate on behalf of the 18-200 lens. Let me first state that my thoughts are based solely on experience with the Nikon 18-200 VR -- I haven't tried the Tamron version, nor the Nikon 18-55 and 55-200.
Most of my photography is of the hand-held 'walk around' kind, capturing memories of trips, family gatherings, social occasions, exhibitions (if photography is permitted), air shows, etc. Some of these are later printed out up to A3 size, but most of them are distributed via the web. For these purposes I find the image quality perfectly acceptable. Best of all though is the convenience -- camera with lens attached, spare battery, polarising filter, etc. all fit neatly into a top loader bag slung over one shoulder. Getting the camera in and out of the bag is quick and easy, and it's relatively light to carry. And not having to waste time changing lenses is a boon.
I also take portrait photos for my local drama group, and I find the 18-200 excellent for this. These photos appear as small b&ws in the theatre programme, and as colour A4s in the foyer. So far everyone seems pleased with them.
Drawbacks? Well, the Nikon 18-200 is a relatively heavy lens, but on the plus side it seems solidly built. It takes 72mm filters. My example suffers from 'zoom creep' (the barrel can extend by itself when pointed down), but that's a minor irritation only. It's fairly expensive. It has a lot of distortion at wide-angle settings (only a problem if you're photographing straight lines and need them to look parallel!).
So it's horses for courses. As others have said, it depends on the type of photography you do. For me, the convenience outweighs the benefit of possibly superior image quality. As they say in the ads, your mileage may vary.
Nikon D7000 and a bunch of Nikon stuff — oh, and some Canon p&s's too
Thanks guys. I am not the biggest fan of switching between my 18-55 and my 55-200 all of the time with fear of more and more dust getting inside of the camera. It is something I might get in the future, but for now I am tight with money. It possibly that I might be better off spending on a prime lens, a quicker all around lens and a flash.
As of right now, my leading prospects are:
1) Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
2) 50mm AF 1.8 prime or 35mm AF-S 1.8 prime
3) Vivitar DF-383 or SB-600 flash
I currently just have the Nikon D5000, 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 zoom. But I'm getting more into shooting events, weddings, products for websites, photos to aid my graphic design work and promotional photos/portraits for artists. Right now my biggest concern are weddings and dealing with low lighting and not missing moments. I hear the Tamron 17-50 is great for someone on a budget. I do love the bokeh creativity I can achieve with a nice prime lens and I see the 50mm and 35mm are popular. I tried out the 50mm at Ritz the other day. Also the Vivitar flash, like the Tamron lens, has a good "off brand" reputation. But I don't know if I should be so tight with saving $70+ vs getting the SB-600.
I am really just trying to build my "future-backup" setup on a budget. So that I can achieve things that I can't with just a kit lens. Buying the top of the line SB900 is not really in my budget, but simply getting a decent/workable flash is because I don't have one. Then as I make good use of the less expensive off brand gear and make more money from actually shooting, I can upgrade/buy new gear/new camera. And the D5000 and current lenses would be great backups to say a D90, D7000 or D300 that I get in the future.
The 50mm AF f/1.8 will not autofocus on the D5000, while the 35mm AF-S f/1.8 will.
If $70 is not such an issue, I'd go for the SB-600 over the Vivitar. But are you able to consider the SB-700? It includes some conveniences like the incandescent/fluorescent filter and a diffusion dome that the SB-600 doesn't have right out of the box.
For indoor events I shoot casually, I've usually found I've needed both a wide aperture and flash.
Nikon D40|Nikon D5100|AF-S 50mm f/1.4|AF-S 18-105mm DX|SB 900|SB 400|AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX|AF-S 10-24mm DX
The 35mm f1.8 is the best $200 I have spent to date. The Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are also nice lenses, but a little more money. Buy a 35mm f1.8 and a SB600.FIf you aren't happy, you can always sell them for almost as much as you paid for them.
Sucks that I can't seem to find the 35mm 1.8 AF-S for under $280 since it's apparently hard to get. Every major seller has them back ordered.
I love the way lens queries here always go way off topic and people get convinced to buy products that they didn't know they wanted and ultimately probably won't use just because somebody else thinks it will be good for them.