55 or 200?

[frosty03]

Its one of those "itches".

Should I....

Go for an 18-55mm VR or the 18-200VR?

Currently have the 18-55 non-VR

I'm finding it very hard to justify the almost 4-5times the 18-200VR will cost me... circa 480squids.... compared to the 100+ for the 55VR.

arrrrgggghhhhh.......

 

[this_is_gav]

1) do you need the extra reach?

2a) lenses with such a wide range will generally suffer optically at each end

2b) so do you need that same lens on all the time, or is it OK to change lenses for different length?

3) consider alternatives such as the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (stupidly sharp and fast), Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 (quite sharp, still quite fast and with a very usable range) or Nikon 16-85 3.5-5.6 (damn sharp, better range still).

4) if you need the extra reach, keep your 18-55 non-VR for now, add to it with a 70-300 (Nikon if you can afford it, but the Sigma APO is better than the budget Nikon kit lenses), then upgrade your stock kit lens at a later date... VR doesn't make that much difference unless you're constantly shooting in low light.

 

[DanF]

Depends on your budget
18-55 VR + 55-200VR is meant to give better optics than the 18-200VR but for much less. They are also nice and light for carrying around. You could start with the 55-200VR as you already have the 18-55 non-vr for now and then upgrade it later.

If you want to move up in optics then sticking with nikon you'd be looking at the 16-85 VR matched with a 70-300VR, both are sharp nice lenses if still a bit slow, but your looking at £430-450 for each.

Personally I'd go for the 16-85VR over the 18-200VR, they are very similar price with the 16-85 having better optics and going a bit wider.

Or as this is gav suggests, look at 3rd party lenses, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 £290 is meant to be really nice, is faster and will be sharp. But you miss out on VR which can be handy for hand holding shots.

 

[D.P.]

1) do you need the extra reach?

2a) lenses with such a wide range will generally suffer optically at each end

2b) so do you need that same lens on all the time, or is it OK to change lenses for different length?

3) consider alternatives such as the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (stupidly sharp and fast), Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 (quite sharp, still quite fast and with a very usable range) or Nikon 16-85 3.5-5.6 (damn sharp, better range still).

4) if you need the extra reach, keep your 18-55 non-VR for now, add to it with a 70-300 (Nikon if you can afford it, but the Sigma APO is better than the budget Nikon kit lenses), then upgrade your stock kit lens at a later date... VR doesn't make that much difference unless you're constantly shooting in low light.

This.

The 18-55 is perfectly fine. I would rather add a 55-200 or 70-300 etc.

 

[martinturner]

This.

The 18-55 is perfectly fine. I would rather add a 55-200 or 70-300 etc.

+1 A waste of cash getting a VR 18-55. I would get a 17-50 Tamron 2.8 and do it properly. Or get the above for the extra reach.