Photogs: Which Nikon zoom combo?

[Mr Curious]

I am getting ready to pull the trigger to move up to a Nikon D90 DSLR and see there are kits available that bundle the 18-105 AND a 70-300 (Costco, Adorama, Amazon), but have been reading favorable reviews of an 18 - 200 whose versatility interests me as one less lens to drag around. I realize the limitations of "kit" lenses but think either of these choices would work well for shooting collector cars, race shots and kids sports. Any experience with either of these setups or links most appreciated. Thanks!

[Racer X]

in broad generalizations, the wider the zoom range, the lower the quality. Itys been a while, but in the film days, there were a few 28-200 and a 28-300, and the 28-300 beyond about 200 mm was pretty poor quality. And wider than about 35mm, there was vignietting and a fair bit of distortion.

The exception is the AF Canon 5-500 f1.8 L IS zoom.

[M A V I C]

Is the 18-200 the 3.5-5.6, vr, dx lens? I've used that one quite a bit. It's very handy. I have an 18-35 3.5 and 80-200 2.8, it needs more light than both of those. The versatility of the 18-200 is very handy. Being a DX, it will be cropped on a full frame body.

If you only want to haul around one lens, it's very good for that. But with the multiplier, I wouldn't want a 70-300 for an every day lens.

[Spock]

Racer X wrote:

The exception is the AF Canon 5-500 f1.8 L IS zoom.

Make sure you get the free Hernia Truss, you'll need it.

[papercup]

The 18-200 is the exception to the rule as far as AOI zooms go ( as pointed out by Racer above). Its a very good all around performer, one that has grown on me once I learned is strong & weak points.

I'm sure you have read the reviews on this lens, which are very favorable.


The other AIO lens to consider is the newer Nikon16-85, which performs very similar to the 18-200.

[Bixby]

The 18-200 is generally regarded as being very good, considering its range. It is pretty slow at 200mm, though.

For fast sports, you'd be best served by a fast lens, along the lines of the 80-200/2.8. It's pricey, though.

If you're at least a bit serious about it, save your money for good glass. Because you'll end up with it in the long run.

[laarree]

I've got a D300 and use the 18-200 as my primary lens about 90% of the time (the rest of the time I use fast lenses for low light and also a macro lens). For the shooting I do, it's been great.

[Racer X]

16-85 is under a 6x, thats not too difficult to make. Now that 18-200 with the DX/APS size image circle is easier to make than a full frame 24x36 sensor lens. That may be why optically it is OK.

[AAA]

My question right now is should I invest in these lenses, if in the not so distant future I'll want to trade up to a larger sensor? I still use my film Nikon/Nikkor lenses on my digital D50. But, that's doable. A DX lens on a future full-frame sensor I imagine would cause problems.

[Racer X]

Canon's small sensor specific lenses won't mount on a full frame body. Not sure about Nikon's mount.