# NIKKOR 18-200mm or 55-300mm lens or just stick to my 18-55mm?



## jemsen96 (Jul 23, 2013)

So I'm planning on getting a lens for my D3200. I'm currently having a NIKKOR 18-55mm Kit lens and a NIKKOR 35mm Prime lens. I want to shoot landscapes and be able to shoot fast moving objects. (e.g. sports) I want to get an affordable lens but I'm not sure on which one to get? 18-200mm or 55-300mm?


----------



## broadbean (Jul 23, 2013)

18-200mm is great as a holiday lens, but I wouldn't think it's fast. At 200mm. It may not be long enough if you're too far from the action either. Is 18mm wide enough for your landscapes?


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 23, 2013)

Spend your money on gas and prints.


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 23, 2013)

jemsen96 said:


> So I'm planning on getting a lens for my D3200. I'm currently having a NIKKOR 18-55mm Kit lens and a NIKKOR 35mm Prime lens. I want to shoot landscapes and be able to shoot fast moving objects. (e.g. sports) I want to get an affordable lens but I'm not sure on which one to get? 18-200mm or 55-300mm?



You should completely avoid the 55-300mm in my opinion. It won't be an 'upgrade', it will simply tack on additional reach to your collection. I took a look at this lens briefly and I didn't go for it.

If you are not satisfied with your reach currently, the 18-105 or 18-200 lenses are two things you can look at. However, you will simply be adding convenience and reach to your camera, and you won't be getting much better photographs than with the 18-55mm kit lens.

I like the 70-300mm VR lens (it costs between $400 and $500), but if you're doing a lot of sports you might want to look at the 70-200mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f2.8 (in the $1400-ish range).

If you're not satisfied with your 18-55mm kit lens due to reach, an 18-200mm might not be a bad purchase. You won't be getting much better images out of it though, just a more convenient reach.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Jul 23, 2013)

It really depends on what sports you'd like to photograph and how close you'll be able to get. I hear people say that you need at least a 300mm for many sports, but I have just bought a 55-200mm VR for my D5100 and I shoot soccer games just fine. Given, they're normally semi-pro/amateur matches and I'm able to be right along the sideline. I may not be able to zoom across the whole field, but if you have played the game for a while, you'll know when the action will be within range of your shot! Also, I bought my 55-200mm VR at adorama, refurbished, for like $130 which is nothing!


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 23, 2013)

I got a 55-200 VR which has now been consigned to a box due to getting the 18-200 VR. The big issue for me was having to changes lens all the time on walkabouts. Mainly I would use the 55-200 but probably 20% of the time the 18-55 was needed. Now I can just keep the one lens on. 

I have noticed the lens is a bit better than the 55-200 at the longer focal lengths. The VR also seems to work better.

As others have said the 18-200 is perfect as a single lens solution (although something shorter than 18mm may be needed for wide landscapes). It is big and fairly heavy though!


----------



## cbarnard7 (Jul 23, 2013)

I guess it also really depends on what your idea of "affordable" is!


----------



## TheLost (Jul 23, 2013)

The auto focus speed on the 18-200mm is MUCH faster then the AF speed on the 55-300mm (and the 55-200mm).  Build quality on the 18-200mm is better... but Image quality will be about the same.


----------



## greybeard (Jul 24, 2013)

Your 18-55 is fine for landscapes but fast moving objects, not so much.  The most cost effective solution would be the 70-300.  It has descent build quality and fast auto focus for around 500.  The 55-300 is pretty slow to focus.


----------

