18-200mm vs 18-300mm - which one would you suggest?
1972150
I own both. But if you only want one, well, a. if you value light-weight, smaller size, easier to lug around, then get the 18-200 b. if you really really want the extra zoom, and don't mind the extra mass, get the 18-300 I wanted both worlds...but I will tell you, my hand did get tired more quickly with the 18-300 mounted...and after I saw the difference in the full zoom pics, I thought to myself : "Is that all the extra I get?"....which I did want more zoom, and I am happy, but thought it would be much bigger than actual results... Holding/shooting with one hand, the 200 felt like a pleasure...the 300 felt hefty. I think hobby-ists can do without the extra zoom...try and find samples of shots at 200mm and 300mm zooms, and decide if it makes a difference to you...
1936611
The 55-300 obviously has more bang for the buck. Go with the 55-300 for the savings if you don't plan to be on the 300mm end very much. It's best about 270mm. The 70-300mm is better than the 55-300mm on the 300mm end.
1578624
In my experience, the 800mm is noticeably better, at least with my copy of the 400mm. The TC option is a lot lighter way to get to 800mm, though.
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
423677
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!
963788
Here's the basics: the smaller the "mm" number, the closer the subject. So a 200mm is the best you'll get for far away. 55mm is good for portraits from 10' away, and an 18mm is good for indoor/small space shots.
982739
If you can afford it, buy the 28/200 or the 28/300 macro lens. It is much more convenient as you do not have to change lenses when shifting from one type of shot to another. It is ideal for the amateur / semi-pro who wants excellent photos. Of course, if you are a professional, you already know that you need many more types of lenses and filters for every situation conceivable.
2065295
Though the 200mm is a great lens (i've got one for three years), I think that the 135mm is better choice for portraits. With the 200mm you have to keep a big distance with your model and It's not always possible in a room.
2117279
There is a far greater range of diversity with the 18- 200 lens that cancels 90 per cent of the lens changes I would have to make as an amateur photog.Fewer changes adds up to less chance of dust contamination.
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!
369534
Actually I have the same question... However, based on the reviews I have seen so far, I think I will go for the 18-135mm. Everybody recomends the good range that it provides, and buying it individually it becomes an expensive lens. On the other hand the 18-55mm will force the need for having an extra zoom.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
2086359
The 18.5mm is for low light situations. When I shoot during the night and/or outdoors using only the lights of the environment, you will love this gem as much as I do.
923249
This probably is not helpful: I'm delighted with the 45-175mm, but I got it for a steal as an Amazon lightning deal for just under $200. Buying was a no-brainer. So the only real advice I can offer is to be extremely patient and keep your eyes open for a great deal on the 45-175mm.
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.
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
1130014
if you have the funds you purchase the f/2.8. if not, get the 70-200 f/2.8. with f/2.8 you can utilize the 2x extender to better capabilities (either 300 or 70-200) i hope you have a camera to match the exceptional qualities of the 300mm f/2.8 to maximize what this lens offers.