# nikon 18-55 vr lens or nikon 18-200 vr lens?



## blue534 (Apr 3, 2009)

hi. i will be beginner. which lens is good quality in the photos. when i search in the sites, i see that 18-55mm vr have better quality in the photos. thanks...


----------



## nikonpreap (Apr 3, 2009)

huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this


----------



## Samriel (Apr 3, 2009)

nikonpreap said:


> huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this



Obviously not the year that technology has evolved enough that a lens with a zoom ration of over 10 is optically superior to the one with a zoom ratio of 3.

I'd say you should go for either the 18-55mm, or get a a good third party lens, like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro, or Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 - gives you much better value for your money. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens, but it does have somewhat inferior image quality, and it tends to make people lazy (why buy a dSLR and not change lenses?).

Good luck!


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 3, 2009)

nikonpreap said:


> huh 18-55mm vr has better quality than a 18-200 vr lens? how long have i been asleep for... what year is this




well this is 2009..... the 18-55 has less barrel distortion at 18mm, is nominally sharper, and has a sturdier build reputation.

the 18-200 kills the 18-55 in image quality at focal ranges of 56mm and above and has VRII giving an extra stop...

it's a little silly to compare these two lenses as some compromise in image quality is a fact of life in superzooms...

having said that..... grabbing the 18-200 and DXO Optics would give you unrivaled convenience and top notch consumer image quality.

you have to consider your budget and appetite for focal range.... if you mostly shoot 18-55, but can afford the 18-200, then get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as suggested below.  

i wouldn't worry too much about the "lazy" label associated with a superzoom.... you prove your worth with great images, not how many times you had  to change your lens to get that great image.


----------



## dcclark (Apr 3, 2009)

OK, lots of technical discussion. I recommend not bothering worrying about details of lens quality until you're past the "beginner" stage, and understand the basics of photography better. At that point, you may be in a position to evaluate lenses based on your own needs and ideas. For now, the 18-55 VR is a very good lens, and you won't notice its limitations for quite a while.


----------



## dcclark (Apr 3, 2009)

Samriel said:


> ... (why buy a dSLR and not change lenses?) ...



Because I travel a lot and want the additional features and flexibility of a DSLR, but not the additional pain of carrying a bag full of lenses. I actually bought my 18-200 VR after a long trip in which my camera bag caused me nothing but trouble, getting lost, being in my way, etc. After that, I sold off several of my old lenses which it _completely_ replaced.

We all have different reasons for what we do, and blanket labels about lenses or styles really don't help.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 3, 2009)

dcclark said:


> For now, the 18-55 VR is a very good lens, and you won't notice its limitations for quite a while.




unless the op is constantly looking to twist the focus ring past 55mm


----------



## dcclark (Apr 3, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> unless the op is constantly looking to twist the focus ring past 55mm



Very good point.  However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 3, 2009)

While the 2 lenses are apples and oranges, the 18-200 will always be the better lens.  It will also be more versatile.

The issues with the 18-200:
- soft on both ends
- vignettes at both ends

These issues are both easily resolved in post process within a few clicks.  What the 18-200 does that the 18-55 doesn't are:

- has less barrel distortion at the short end
- has less pin cushioning
- has better sharpness... matter of fact, it has the sharpness of the near $2000 70-200 F/2.8 lens in between 50-150mm at apertures around F/10-F/13
- has greater focal range
- has VR
- and it has a bigger price for the extra "stuff".

The 18-200 is the ultimate walk around lens and I use it a lot to this day... however, when ultimate quality is what I desire, the 18-200 comes off and is replaced with something better.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 3, 2009)

dcclark said:


> Very good point.  However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.




no doubt...


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 3, 2009)

dcclark said:


> Very good point.  However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.



If you look at the sweet spots on both lenses, they are both going to be so close as to be inseperable... however that sweet spot on the 18-200 is between 50-150mm and on the 18-55 between 30-45mm.  Both are sharpest over F/10 as well.

Again greater versatility goes to the 18-200, but again... there is a $$ to pay.


----------



## Samriel (Apr 3, 2009)

dcclark said:


> Because I travel a lot and want the additional features and flexibility of a DSLR, but not the additional pain of carrying a bag full of lenses. I actually bought my 18-200 VR after a long trip in which my camera bag caused me nothing but trouble, getting lost, being in my way, etc. After that, I sold off several of my old lenses which it _completely_ replaced.
> 
> We all have different reasons for what we do, and blanket labels about lenses or styles really don't help.



I completely agree, and apologize if my previous post was somewhat misleading. 

As mentioned, superzooms are very versatile and practical, especially when size and space is a problem. I'd still suggest you get a third party (Sigma or Tamron) 17-50mm F2.8 unless you really want to save space by using only one lens, or really need the length for shooting subjects that are further away. You'll get better image quality, and some extra cash for your next purchase.


----------



## Moonlighter (Apr 3, 2009)

for a beginner who travels a lot 18-200will be more suitable.


----------



## adamwilliamking (Apr 3, 2009)

dcclark said:


> Very good point.  However, the OP seems to be talking about image quality, which is amazingly good on that little lens.


 
I would never describe the image quality of that lens anywhere near amazing.


----------



## blash (Apr 3, 2009)

Why does everyone keep talking about barrel distortion like it's a bad thing? *hugs his 24mm*:razz:


----------



## Daki_One (Apr 3, 2009)

i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.


----------



## Samriel (Apr 3, 2009)

Daki_One said:


> i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.



I don't think the 18-200mm is going to be much better in low light, although the VRII will give it a slight edge over the 18-55mm.


----------



## smyth (Apr 4, 2009)

Daki_One said:


> i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.



what did you expect? it's a variable aperture lens.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 4, 2009)

Daki_One said:


> i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.



If you really want to be disappointed in your 18-55, test it against a Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 DC EX HSM macro... this lens has  handily beaten the $1500 Nikkor 17-55 in shoot-outs done by 3 independent photo magazines last year.

That would be the definition of disappointment right there... lol


----------



## TUX424 (Apr 4, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> If you really want to be disappointed in your 18-55, test it against a Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 DC EX HSM macro... this lens has  handily beaten the $1500 Nikkor 17-55 in shoot-outs done by 3 independent photo magazines last year.
> 
> That would be the definition of disappointment right there... lol


I always laugh when i hear this brought up...
But that is comparing apple to oranges.
The Sigma 18-50 make for low-light with the f/2.8
Nikon 18-55 NOT make for low light and cheaply built


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 4, 2009)

If you want a cheap start up lens, I'd say go for nikon 18-70.  If you want a much better lens, and can spend a few hundred more, the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50 or tokina 16-50 etc.  Combine that with maybe a 55-200 (a cheap but pretty good lens) and you'd be set for awhile.


----------



## smyth (Apr 5, 2009)

TUX424 said:


> I always laugh when i hear this brought up...
> But that is comparing apple to oranges.
> The Sigma 18-50 make for low-light with the f/2.8
> Nikon 18-55 NOT make for low light and cheaply built



he said the $1500 17-50mm nikkor not the $100 nikon kit lens.

The only difference really between the sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the nikon 17-50 f2.8 is a the build quality, which is better on the nikon, and the price, which not surprisingly, is higher on the nikon.

That's embarrasing, when you pay 1/3 the price and get better quality images out of it. The only downside you can't knock someone out with the Sigma!


----------



## smyth (Apr 5, 2009)

photogincollege said:


> If you want a cheap start up lens, I'd say go for nikon 18-70.  If you want a much better lens, and can spend a few hundred more, the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50 or tokina 16-50 etc.  Combine that with maybe a 55-200 (a cheap but pretty good lens) and you'd be set for awhile.



The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is only $25-$75 more than the Nikon 18-70...


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 5, 2009)

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC HSM goes for about $375.  The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II goes for about $395.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 5, 2009)

That "cheap" Sigma 18-50 is sharper than a Nikkor $1500 17-55... has lower distortion, less CA, less pin cushioning and a free macro mode tossed in for the same price (no its not a 1:1 macro but for the price, but come on... neither the Nikkor nor Tamron even have a macro mode nor focus on an object that is a 1/2 inch from the front element so there! LOL! ).

The Tamron cannot say that.  The Tamron also has one issue that irks me... the screws on the inside element come loose over time and often even drop out.  This doesn't happen on all of them, but about 25% of the Tamron 17-50 Flickr users who bought one about 1-2 years ago (when I was doing my homework on which to get), reported this issue.  It was relatively easy to fix, just a watch maker's screwdriver in a comletly dust free environment and a little automotive locktite along with 20-30 minutes work solved it... but I do not understand why I as a  new lens owner would need to do this... becuase this was not covered under warranty and anyone that sent it back to Sigma received a $125 invoice.


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 5, 2009)

> The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is only $25-$75 more than the Nikon 18-70...


Sorry I got mine for like 100 dollars used, and it was brand freakin new XD.  I was talking used prices when I said that.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## dcclark (Apr 5, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> I would never describe the image quality of that lens anywhere near amazing.



I guess I should qualify: for a $100 kit lens, it's amazingly good. I'd be quite happy to use it in most circumstances -- yes, there's some distortion (although not as much as many lenses). Yes, it's cheaply made (but light, which is a bonus, and I haven't had ANY trouble with actual quality). Yes, it has a variable aperture -- but so do almost all zooms which are as light and anywhere near as inexpensive.

Finally -- for anyone just starting out, the Nikon 18-55mm is going to offer good enough quality that they won't notice its problems -- and that's good because they can then focus on what matters: composition! colors! subjects! ... and all of those other non-technical things that are all too easy to ignore when you get caught up in equipment. (And THEN... when they've figured a few things out... they can figure out which new and shiny lens will be best for them.)


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 5, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> That "cheap" Sigma 18-50 is sharper than a Nikkor $1500 17-55...


 I'm not surprised that folks that sent their Tamron lenses to Sigma for repair were invoiced.  

Several reviews have indicated that if you get a good copy, or if you are patient enough with Sigma's warranty, they make some excellent lenses, but there are a disturbing number of stories of problems, especially with the telephoto zooms.

Here are a couple of reviews from the Canon realm:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Review
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens Review

Of course, I splurged ($854) on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.  :lmao:


----------



## ventolin (Mar 19, 2011)

What Sigma 18-50 2.8 exactly is better than nikon's and costs about 35-80 $ more than the nikon 18-70. there are many sigma 18-50.


----------



## KmH (Mar 19, 2011)

This thread died nearly 2 years ago....FAIL.


----------

