Lens options: what would you do?

Irish_Tom

Irish_Tom

Irish_Tom

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
15,187
Lo all.

I currently have a Nikon D50 with 18-55 kit lens and a Sigma 70-300APO.

I've just been given £300 as a belated christmas present and I want to get a new lens.

The two I have my eye on is the Sigma 10-20mm and the Nikon 18-200 VR

I realise that I would have to sell the 70-300 and kit lens if I was going to afford the 18-200 but it was always my intention to replace those two with the 18-200 at some point.

I really love landscape photography which is why i had the 10-20 in mind, but having seen some shots on here recently at 18mm I'm starting to think that image stablising and the extra quality of glass in the Nikon might be a better option.

So what would you all do in this situation?

Cheers guys

Panzer
 
I'm in a (near) similar sitation, I own the 18-70, and I'm saving for a new lens - either the 10-20 or the 18-200.

I guess the first thing is to look at your shooting habits:

How often do you take out the 70-300 (e.g. how often do you need >55mm)
How many times do you look through the eye piece at 18mm and think "If only it could be a bit wider"
How often do you use your 70-300 at lengths > 200mm
How often do you have the 18-55mm on, zoom in and think "oh dear... I need to change lens as this isn't long enough ;) "

At a rough guess I'd say the 18-200 would be a better buy. Probably the best all round lens out there, the VR is a nice feature and the convience of such a large focal length in a single lens really is very nice.

The 10-20 is a nice lens but it is slightly more of a gimiky lnes than the 18-200 (gimiky in the sense that you'd probably use it less).

Ken Rockwell had a review of the ultrawide zooms, I think he went for the Tamron (after the Nikon 12-24). Have a read of the review, it might raise some issues for you.

The other problem is finding an 18-200, I can't find one for love nor money - but some people on here seem to find them just sitting on the shelf of their local store. Bar Stewards :p :)
 
Thanks for the reply Paddy.

In answer to all your questions about usuage; quite often!

Doesn't really help unfortuantly. :p

As for the 10-20 being gimikey, I think I will get a lot of use out of it simply because of where I live and the type of land/sea scapes I want to shoot.

However, after reading the review of the super-wide lenses, it seems the nikon is the best, and I couldn't afford that even with this £300 and selling off my current lenses so maybe it would be better going for the 18-200. However, the review of it on Ken's site did say that if you're on a budget, the kit lens and a 70-300 will produce perfect adequate photos..

I need some more imput. There's been plenty of views of this thread; do non of you have an oppinion?

Cheers

Panzer
 
I've got an 18-200VR and it really is a keep on camera lens for most of the time.

I've got my eye on something a little wider, but decided to go the macro route first. I don't think you will be disappointed with the 18-200 and if you are, they hold their value well and you should get most of what you pay back for it.

If I had to find fault with it it would be that it's slow (aperture wise) but that's a given for the size and weight of it, and the build quality is consumer level not pro level, there is creep if you hold the camera lens downwards

I was at a wedding the other day and (outside in good light) it was perfect for candids at 200mm and then groups etc at 18mm, and everything in between.

You might frown on it, but you can always stitch some 18mm together to get the wider shot, the only time I want wider is for urban architecture type stuff.

Oh and there is a comparison of the major wide lenses on nikonians

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks Neggy.

Good to hear some first hand experience with the lens. The fund's have just gone up to £500 as of this evening (don't ask me how I've accumulated this cash :confused:it's a shock to me too). I can now afford the 18-200 straight up and sell the other two lenses for beer tokens or the like, unless with the extra £150ish I could get an even better lens.

I think this seems like the best option at the moment, I can always save up for the Nikon 12-24 at a later date if I really need to go much wider. As you say, I can alway stitch together panoramas.

Thanks for the advice you two, I'll report back once I've got the lens and let you know how I get on.

*quick edit*

I've just read on the Nikonian review of the 18-200 that VR isn't compatible with the D50. Is this a real problem? I realise it's future proofed for when I upgrade the body (will probably be a deciding factor in me upgrading tbh) but it seems a bit of a waste to pay for a feature that isn't going to be used.

*/quick edit*

Panzer
 
Last edited:
If I were you I would buy either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24, I have the latter and use it a lot.

Since you have lenses that cover the optical range you would get with the 18-200 then get something different. Just live with some quick lens changes. Could always buy the 18-200 later. For the same price of an 18-200 you could probably buy yourself a nice macro lens too which would also allow you to open up another area.

I have a 70-200 VR and the 18-70 kit lens, I would rather use those two lenses (or my 70-210 cheapo) than the 18-200 for quality purposes.
 
Sol said:
I have a 70-200 VR and the 18-70 kit lens, I would rather use those two lenses (or my 70-210 cheapo) than the 18-200 for quality purposes.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it's a fair comparison to compare the 70-200VR + 18-70 with the 18-200 that combo is more than twice the price. Optically I would expect that combo to walk all over the 18-200, the 18-200 is all about convenience with minimum compromise on quality, but at the end of the day it is a consumer super zoom.

In the long term I really want to move to a 70-200VR to get the extra speed.
I'd love to see a fast 18-70 possibly with VR to pair it. If only the 17-55 was a 17-70.

that said I would still keep the 18-200 as a walk about lens, when it's not convenient to be lugging lenses
 
I went for the 18-200VR in the end.

After reading the reviews of the superwides I decided I would rather wait and get the nikon 12-24, all the reviews suggested it was the best out there.

I found the 18-200 for £480, cheapest I could find it in the UK. Have to wait a week for them to get it in stock, but that gives me time to find and order some filters for it.

Thanks for all your help guys.

Panzer
 
Cool, have fun with it, look forward to seeing some pictures.

Is the place you are getting it from definitely getting some in stock, as when I got mine no-one could guarantee that they would be getting any in, which is why I had to go the HK route. Might be worth double checking.
 
Yeah the 70-200 is obviously a lot more expensive (I paid about £700 for mine) but that's why I said or the 70-210 (£70). The 18-200 looks pretty average at the telephoto end. That said, I was thinking of getting one to replace my 18-70 but I think I'll stick with it and get a better all purpose 2.8 lens instead.

On the 12-24 point, it is very very slightly better than the competition from what I can see. The tokina is the best built of the bunch and it matches the Nikon (from what I've seen) in everything except flare. I'd rather pay 3-4 times less and deal with it.

Anyway get out there and shoot some stuff and persuade me to buy the 18-200 ;).
 
Sol said:
Yeah the 70-200 is obviously a lot more expensive (I paid about £700 for mine) but that's why I said or the 70-210 (£70). The 18-200 looks pretty average at the telephoto end. That said, I was thinking of getting one to replace my 18-70 but I think I'll stick with it and get a better all purpose 2.8 lens instead.

On the 12-24 point, it is very very slightly better than the competition from what I can see. The tokina is the best built of the bunch and it matches the Nikon (from what I've seen) in everything except flare. I'd rather pay 3-4 times less and deal with it.

Anyway get out there and shoot some stuff and persuade me to buy the 18-200 ;).
Click to expand...

I've actually tested all 3 ultrawides for the Nikon in the shop (annoyed the staff for a few hours) and the Nikon is a long way better than the others (in the examples I got). The tokina might be better built slightly but the image quality didn't compare.


I think the sigma could be quite good if you got a decent sample but I didn't so I can't be sure. End result, I'd only buy the nikon myself...
 
Panzerbjorn said:
Yeah the guy had 10 on order, meant to be coming in this week. He said including mine 7 had been snapped up already!

Panzer
Click to expand...

good stuff, I wasn't trying to scare you, I just know this lens has been hard to get hold of in the past, and some retailers will take your order without knowing when they are getting any in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom