Is it worth the investment if I already have a 18-200? For porttraits, is the $450 investment in this lens worth it?
1081449
If you have a D5000, you will have to manually focus the 85mm f1.8D lens. To get an Auto Focus lens for this level of camera would require the 85mm f/1.8G lens. It is important to know whether your camera has an autofocus engine or not.
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
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.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
827133
It's a good lens for my needs. I have found the 18-300mm type lenses just don't do all that well, I think too much range to cover but this does well and being a f/2.8 it's better for darker shots. Heavier than a kit lens but worth it in my opinion.
1927444
if you have the typical 18-55mm that comes with the camera I dont think you loose quality and will gain significant range of use with the 18-200. I have used this lenses extensively with relevant endurance tests. It is a very resistant. Have not use the 70-300mm
150329
Stay with the 200. Vignette is minimal to none and the clarity of the 18-200 is very impressive. Clear and sharp edge to edge(this impressed me the most.) You wont miss the 300 and you can take the money savings and apply to another lens.
1441507
i have the d80 with the 18-70 dx, the 70-300 ed, and the 50 1.8 d nikkors, plus the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. what glass you put on your d80 to start with should depend on intended uses and experience level. if all you want is an all-in-one lens, go for the 18-135 kit, unless you can afford the 18-200 vr. the 24-120 VR is another sweet after-market option if you go body-only and just want one lens, but you'd probably be better off, however, with either the 18-55 or the 18-70, plus the 55-200 vr. for the size, weight, and cost, they're very good for plastic consumer lenses. the downside is they're fairly slow for (D)SLR lenses, due to narrow apertures at the long end. if low-light photography or action sports is your bag, skip the nikkors altogether unless you can afford the 17-55 2.8 and/or the 70-200 VR. get the d80 body and grab a sigma or tamron 2.8. if w/a is your thing, i'd get one of the 18s (-55, -70, -135, -200) and pair it with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. if you're more of a telephoto person, get the 18-55 or -70 and pair it with the inexpensive 70-300 non-vr g lens. the money you save over the ed or vr versions can go toward a good tripod -- unless you really think you're gonna be doing a lot of handheld shooting at 300mm. for macro and portrait work, consider again going body-only with the d80, getting the $100 50 1.8 prime, and maybe the sigma 30, the nikkor 60, and the tamron 90 to round out your selection, which would give you a nice, sharp range. if all of this seems too complicated, look at a fixed-zoom P&S or the d40/18-55 combo.
963789
55-210 like others has said should fit your needs. I wouldn't go with the 18-200 since you should already have the 18-55 with your kit. By the way, I use 18-55 for 90% of my shots. I bought the 55-210 myself, It's cheaper and in my test before I bought it, it has better contrast and IQ then the 18-200. The 18-55 and 55-210 are the only lens I take with me when I go on vacation. Also 18-200 is a lot heaver. FYI: Once you pass the beginning phase with this camera, get you some adaptors for other lens and it pretty much open a new world of options on photography. Have fun out there!
435057
I've never had IS in any lens. This is a hardy lens for travel, but needs a lot of light. A better choice might be the Tamron 28mm-75mm f/2.8 which is a fast lens. And with your 1.5x crop factor, you essentially have a tele up to about 100mm. This is a great lens and I've not used my 18-200 at all since I put it on my camera. The image quality is miles ahead as well. Good luck and have fun.
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less
356777
It depends on what $200 is worth to you. Assuming you just have the 18-55mm for a season, will the loss of pictures zoomed between and including 1x to 2x in addition to the ability to get that without changing lens with the higher quality of extra low dispersion (ED), be less than $200 to you?
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.
2252858
It's probably a matter of personal preference, however, it was my preference not to change lenses while 'out and about' and I could avoid carry a second lens. The 18-200 lens is obviously heavier that either of the smaller lenses, but it works so beautifully that after I got it, I seldom used the other 2.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
916482
I personally think that he'd benefit more from purchasing the nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) to cover that range, and then also buy the 100mm f2.8. Honestly there is not a huge difference in terms of image quality between the 50mm f1.8 and the f1.4. The f1.8 does have trouble focusing in dark conditions, but for the price (and for a beginner) it is a great option and it leaves your budget open to get another lens.
766814
I started with the two lens, 18-50, & 50-200. I liked them both, but found I always had to travel with both and was constantly changing back & forth. Recently I bought the 18-135 lens just prior to a trip and loved the fact I could leave it on for almost everything. It replaced the other two lens, which made traveling so much nicer. Quality is the same, but the convenience was great. It will become my primary lens.