Nikon 18-200 or the 18-140mm? I am looking for something with a fast focus and sharp pictures. Looking for a solid general purpose lens. I already have the 55-300 so I'm looking for something better, with a faster focus. Does this one focus quickly or is the 18-200 as good or better? Thanks! Nikon 18-200 or the 18-140mm? I am looking for something with a fast focus and sharp pictures. Looking for a solid general purpose lens. I already have the 55-300 so I'm looking for something... » Read More Nikon 18-200 or the 18-140mm? I am looking for something with a fast focus and sharp pictures. Looking for a solid general purpose lens. I already have the 55-300 so I'm looking for something better, with a faster focus. Does this one focus quickly or is the 18-200 as good or better? Thanks! « Show Less
1192315
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise.Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1192316
I have had the 18 to 200. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. If you're predisposed towards it, I won't try to talk you out of it, BUT . . I really like the 18 to 140 on my daily carry D5200. Fits the job and fits my hands. VERY sharp with great contrast and saturation. BTW, my fair, civic gathering lens in my D300s is almost always the 18 to 300, so ya makes your choice and you take your chances. IMHO, as long as it says "Nikon" on, you can't go wrong. Pick one.
1192317
I really like the 18-140. I also have the 55-300. At the time I was researching to purchase a new lens the 18-140 appeared to be the better choice. I went to the Nikon site and did a comparison between the 18-140, 18-200, and 18-300. The 18-140 was new, with the newer technology, lighter, and cheaper. For me, 18-140 focus quickly and it has the range I use most. I usually keep the 55-300 with me, so I'm covered in most situations.
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.
1192319
I can't compare the two, but reviews I read indicated specs for the 140 were better at the edges. I bought the 140 several months ago, and am very pleased with quality and speed.
1192320
If you have a 16MP sensor camera or better then go with the 18-140mm. Its sharper than 18-200. Both of them focus quickly. If you have an old camera with less Megapixels then 18-200 will be better because the focal range, unless weight is an issue for you.
1192321
Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in terms of money or ergonomics/weight. Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in... » Read More Solid :: 18-200mm primarily because of build qulaity. Hence heavier and more expensive. Sharp is subjective here since you are comparing apples and oranges.. for example if it has to be at 140mm then 18-200mm is sharper than 18-140mm (boundary conditions). compare two lenses at same zoom range.. for example a canon or nikon or sigma (assuming all make 18-200mm.). Upto 18-120mm both are equally sharp... if using D3100 or cheaper camera none is sharp. These are sold by millimeters... make you choice based on the range you need.. 18-35/55/105/135/140/200/300... and price you willing to pay in terms of money or ergonomics/weight. « Show Less
2096574
I am not familiar with the 18-300mm, but I definitely do not recommend the 180-200mm. It has very poor sharpness. Other I know have the same issue with this lens. I sold mine.
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
608535
Hey,the focus is very fast and absolutely noticeable compared to the 18-55mm. Hope that helps.Kind regards
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
464454
To be honest, unless you need 1.4 or the DOF scale, or minimum distortion at 23mm, the 18-55 is going to be better simply because of the IOS. I own this lens and I love it, but it really doesn't provide much over the 18-55, and I actually keep the 18-55 on most of the time unless I am going to do street photography in daylight.
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.
1239593
The focal length being 105mm will give you a sharp picture through the entire range. It's not the most durable lens since it has a plastic mount. The 18 200mm has a metal mount. It's probably a better all around lens but it does get soft in places. For me it seems to be around 135mm but it seems to help if you get the shutter speed around 1/500. I had the 18 105mm for two years and the mount broke on me after dropping from a 2 1/2 foot speaker onto carpet. Cost $65 to fix.
423679
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original... » Read More If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! « Show Less
423082
The 18-105 is definitely the sharper lens. In my opinion, even at F4 throughout the entire range, you get amazing results. The 18-200, like most zooms, you have to really stop it down some to get the best results and the telephoto ends tends to get soft focus. It's a good all-in-one but definitely can notice the difference in performance and image quality especially in lower light situations.
1856384
I looked at both this lens & the 16-35mm lens. I got the 16-35mm lens. In my search for other lenses I found that the 18-35 is not that great.
823212
The 18-250 has two variants, one with an internal focus motor (AII) and one that does not (AI). The 18-250mm is a great lens but came out in 2008. I would suggest the 18-270 instead or the Sigma 18-200mm, the Nikon 18-300 or the Nikon 18-200VRII which I own.
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
269557
Wow -- you are looking at two completely different focal ranges -- what do you plan to shoot?..If you want distance shots (i.e. nature, landscapes, walk-around shots in the city, being able to zoom in on, well, basically anything, then you really DO need a longer focal range lens like the 55-200 in addition to your kit lens. If you plan on shooting things in "normal mode" -- i.e. the 35mm lens will replicate pretty much exactly what the human eye is looking at, then it is far faster than your kit lens, and it's a great walk-around lens. But if you are a first time dSLR buyer, you have to think about what you are going to shoot. If you are coming from the world of point-and-shoots that start at a standard 3-5X zoom, you will right off the bat see that the 18-55 kit lens is very limiting in zoom. Your typical point and shoot goes from 28 - 210 or so. There is software available that lets you see what focal range you shoot most of your photos in - just google for that. It basically looks at your photo folders and determines what the focal ranges of your photos are. I find that I take about 40 percent of my photos at 35mm and below -- and about 40% of my photos at 200 or above....and the rest sort of scattered. I would not be able to survive with only a kit lens and a 35mm lens (which is the same as a normal 50mm lens on a DX camera like the D5000)...With that setup, you would have a range of 27-80 with duplication of the 35mm smack dab in the middle). That is about 1/3 the normal zoom range of a point and shoot. My take -- get the D5000 with the standard kit lens, and add the 55-200 option. Down the road, you will know if you need a 35mm lens as well. The only reason you would need it with that setup is if you find yourself taking a lot of low-light photos where you need a faster lens (the 1.8)...otherwise you might not need it for your purposes at all.
150331
Deepak, I am currently using this lens on a Nikon D300 with 12.3 megapixels. I own several Nikkor lenses, ranging from wide angle to 300mm. This 18-200 is the best of all. Since receiving it, I have not taken it off the D300. I use it exclusively. It is a great lens. The VR feature is also fantastic. Low light shots come out great. I would highly recommend this lens for high megapixel cameras. It works great on my D300. I think you will be very happy once you use it too.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.