D7000 walk about lens

rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
edited March 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
I'm looking to get the Nikon 18-200 lens for my D7000 however amazons price keeps increasing and I found it last night on Digital Rev for a decent price. Is this a reputable seller?

Neil
«1

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,481Moderator
    I haven't heard anything bad about them - check their return policy.
    Always learning.
  • PaulohnPaulohn Posts: 33Member
    There is also the 18-300mm, which gives you extra reach and, regarding quality, as I´ve been reading in reviews, it is quite similar to the 18-200mm. Of course it costs something extra.
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    I take it that with the 18-300 you can get a better maximum aperture at 200mm than on the 18-200 lens itself?
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    I would like the 300mm but it's a bit heavy, expensive and hopefully the 200mm should do me fine for now. If anyone can persuade me otherwise then...
  • PaulohnPaulohn Posts: 33Member
    Well, I have a 18-105mm and it is a very good "multipurpose" lens.

    There is another topic discussing these zoom lenses. I believe it is one related to the D7100.
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    I have the 18-105 already and wanted something with a little more reach.
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    If you have the 18-105 I'd consider springing for the 70-300 VR.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    I am going on a trip and need to keep weight and stuff to a minimum so would the 18-300 be best over the 18-200? I only really want to take one lens with me and will only have time to use one so no point in taking two

    I just feel that I'm limited on focal length with the 18-105
  • Dredden85Dredden85 Posts: 364Member
    edited March 2013
    I have the 18-105 already and wanted something with a little more reach.
    What is your trip consisting of? What type of pictures do you expect to take? My N18-200 on my D7000 is great. It would not be too much more weight and be at a better price would be the 70-300. Is there any way you could rent a lens in time for your trip?
    I agree with dissent.
    Post edited by Dredden85 on
    D7000, 18-200VRII | 50 1.8G | SB-900
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    edited March 2013
    edit - Dredden85 types faster than I do. :-)

    If you're not sure about committing to a purchase on the 18-300mm, you could just rent one for the duration of your trip and see how it works out for you. If it works for you, then you can just buy one later.

    Or you could rent the 18-200 for a trial. I shot this Rushmore pic -
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/92617093@N05/8452816856/in/photostream
    at 75mm, ISO 100, f/13. This looks OK to me for sharpness, although out to 200mm things get softer and aperture is f/5.6 max. So maybe the 18-300 would give you a bit more range, depending on what you expect to shoot. I found for much of my vacation shooting I was more at the wide end than the long end.
    Post edited by dissent on
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • PaulohnPaulohn Posts: 33Member
    Pricewise, considering the prices at BH, I would go for the 18-300mm (it is only USD 100 more expensive).

    It is about 250~300g heavier. I would go to a store and ask to test it. Then you can check is the additional weight is something you can deal with or if it is better to get the 18-200mm.
  • jjdarlingjjdarling Posts: 59Member
    I never worried about weight before, figuring that I'm a young strong dude. However, I have the Sigma 18-200, as a walk-about lens and that is HEAVY. It's not the weight that bugs me though, but the balance. I wear a Blackrapid strap, so the camera hangs at my hip, and the lens is so much heavier than the camera, which is how the BR strap attaches, making it hang almost vertically, and so it spins quite a bit.

    For balance, I'll sometimes attach the SB-700 flash to the top just to make it hang more naturally, even when I know I won't use it, FURTHER adding to the weight.

    Not sure if this applies to you, but if you test the two lenses, actually try walking about with both to see how it handles, not just how heavy it is.
    www.jjdarling.com
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    My trip is visiting Japan and visiting theme parks and riding roller coasters, due to Japan being a country I have not sited before I want to be ale to shoot the standard touristy photos and photos of the parks and attractions. For the coasters I may want more zoomed in shots to get rider expressions etc. so a wide range of shooting styles. Overviews of areas and parks and close ups. As I will be walking around parks and hopping on and off rides I want a lens that can cope with the majority of things well but be light-ish to be able to be put quickly in a bag, ride a ride, get off and get back to shooting and walking.

    I know it s a strange trip, just need to keep weight down and keep things organised and as simple as possible.

    I would rather a lens with more range in the wide angle than the 70-300 so I can take some of the overview shots as well.

    Going to see if I can find somewhere than has both and try them out and see which may fit my needs the best.
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    Wow, the 18-300 from BH is so cheap. Why is everything so expensive in the UK? Anyone find me a good deal on the 200 and 300?
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    FYI, here's Mansurov's take on the 18-300 -

    http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-18-300mm-vr
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    From looking at that review it seems like the 200 may be a better fit, lighter mainly but I'll still go and try them out first
  • LareLare Posts: 46Member
    I have both--at least temporarily. The 300 is markedly heavier and wider than the 200. That said, I carry the 300 when I know (or expect) that I will want that extra reach and consider the 200 as my "lightweight" lens.

    With the current Nikon rebates (if they're active where you are) you can get the 300 on sale for what the 200 normally costs. (Of course, the 200 is proportionately cheaper at the moment, but I try not to let that kind of thing get in the way of my rationalizing.)

    I did some side-by-side longish distance comparisons of the two and was pleased with both, but impressed with the extra reach of the 300. All that extra weight wasn't wasted, imho.

  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    @rctneil: Our D7000 has a 18-200VR on it most of the time. All in all it is a very useful lens. We have dozens of lens, some FX some DX, some gold ring Nikkors, but day in day about the 18-200VR is extremely useful. Another useful zoom is the 12-24DX zoom. I tried the 18-300 and did not rate in anywhere near as high as the 18-200. Once a lens gets to be a certain weight....it better serve your immediate need to justify the bulk and weight. I'd rather carry an additional lens and put it on when necessary. The 18-200VR doesn't receive rave reviews much but it has as a one lens does A LOT VERY WELL. My take on all of this is that lens (18-200VR) and that camera (D7000) are an incredibly useful combo.
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    Thanks DaveyJ, Brilliant and informative post. I'll go and try them both but leaning towards the 200 at the mo.
  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    edited March 2013
    Check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di VC USD. Or the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8

    They are both cheaper than the horrid superzooms and they are also sharper, faster and ofc much shorter in the long end. Nevertheless, I think you would be better served by either of the aforementioned and a Tamron 75-300 Di VC USD zoom for the long end (ain´t that much more weight to carry and you get better image quality as well). And if you get the 2 off-brand lenses you can probably get them cheaper than either of the superzooms.

    Post edited by Godless on
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    As stated previously, I will be travelling with one lens. Even if I took two, I will not have the time to stop and change lenses and it would be pointless as my situation will be changing quickly so I need a wide range lens that can be used in a very quick time.

    I realise that my photo expectations should be lower overal but I simply will not have the time to do lens changes as often as the environment I will be in will be changing would require me to do so.

    Thanks though.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,481Moderator
    How has this thread continued so long off topic? :-/

    Continuing off topic, you said you 'feel' that the 18-105 doesn't have enough reach so you don't actually know yet you are about to buy an expensive lens and are also carping about cost. :-))

    Analyse your pictures and see what you already do and then buy the best lens for the job at a price that you can manage from a shop that supports this forum. 8-|
    Always learning.
  • rctneilrctneil Posts: 39Member
    The 105 definitely doesn't have enough reach. I have hit it's limit in reach quite a few times.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,481Moderator
    I'm looking to get the Nikon 18-200 lens for my D7000 however amazons price keeps increasing and I found it last night on Digital Rev for a decent price. Is this a reputable seller?

    Neil
    I haven't heard anything bad about them - check their return policy.
    There ya go.
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    I would recommend the suppliers on the forum Buyers Guide

    http://nikonrumors.com/prices/
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.