Nikon 18-300 vs 18-200 + 70-300

[psyphris]

My camera is a d7100 and currently I own the 35mm 1.8 lens which has been a blast. Now that it's summer and I'll be doing more hiking I wanted to pick up a new lens for that, you know, something with zoom so I don't have to be petting the deer to get a pic of it I decided on the Nikon 70-300 for that use case.

I've also been in the market for a every day lens for when I'm walking around the city. After playing with some lenses I settled on the Nikon 18-200 for that purpose. You can get the close shots without having to stand in the road and you can get the long shots so you don't have to cross the street. It really feels like a great lens for that.

Now the Nikon 70-300 runs for $600 new but was just available refurbished for $316. The Nikon 18-200 runs for $600 new. So, both new is $1200 and one new/one refurb is $916. I can pick up the Nikon 18-300 new for $1000 which is less than both new and slightly more than one new/one used.

Is there any reason to own the two separate lenses or is the one a better option? I mean on paper it seems like just buy the Nikon 18-300 because less lens swapping. However, I know some lenses have their quirks so I figured I'd try and get some opinions here.

Thank YOU!

 

[KmH]

I do not recommend superzoom lenses (10x+ zoom range) because of the many optical quality issues necessary design compromises introduce.
No doubt the superzoom lenses are convenient and popular, but that convenience comes at the price of a fairly broad collection of image quality issues.
So if convenience is more important to you than image quality, get the superzoom lenses.

One of Nikon's best lens values is the FX Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

 

[psyphris]

Thanks Keith, that was the 70-300 I was looking at in the original post. I know a lot more glass goes into those superzoom lenses so it's good to hear your view. I figured with all of that there may be more issues compared to smaller zooms and prime lenses.

 

[colnago1331]

I agree with Keith; the superzoom lenses give up too much optically to be worth it. In your position I'd look at a Nikon 18-105mm or 18-140mm to go with the 70-300mm. I think the 18-200mm may be overkill.

 

[psyphris]

I agree with Keith; the superzoom lenses give up too much optically to be worth it. In your position I'd look at a Nikon 18-105mm or 18-140mm to go with the 70-300mm. I think the 18-200mm may be overkill.

Thanks for the advice! That's 2 for the "Superzoom Lenses Aren't Worth It" group. The 18-140mm is currently available refurbished for $275 which seems like a decent deal.

 

[robbins.photo]

I agree with Keith; the superzoom lenses give up too much optically to be worth it. In your position I'd look at a Nikon 18-105mm or 18-140mm to go with the 70-300mm. I think the 18-200mm may be overkill.

Thanks for the advice! That's 2 for the "Superzoom Lenses Aren't Worth It" group. The 18-140mm is currently available refurbished for $275 which seems like a decent deal.

I've never shot the 18-140 but I've heard some pretty good things about it overall. I have shot the 70-300 mm AF-S VR, it's an outstanding lens. Best in it's class really. That one I can vouch for wholeheartedly.

 

[Derrel]

Read the Thom Hogan lens reviews for practical comments on various Nikon-made lenses. Maybe also read some of the Ken Rockwell reviews. Superzooms....yeah,yeah,yeah...they're utter $hi+, that's what some people say. But then again, there are a LOT of them made and sold because a LOT of people want convenience, and all-in-one-lens capability. If we wanted nothing less than the best, we'd buy a 300/2.8, and 200mm f/2, and a 135 and 105 DC pair, and an 85 AF-SG f/1.4, and we'd buy a 50, and a 35/1.4 and 28 f/1.8 G, and then an ultra-wide Zeiss prime, and we'd be into it for $23,000 AND thirty pounds of lenses.

A superzoom is every focal length you need in one lens barrel, and that's WHY people want them,and why they buy them. By the tens of thousands. Given that MOST photos are never,ever printed, and are seen only on a computer or smartphone screen, the ultimate in optical quality is a needless extravagance for most people. It's like saying everybody "needs a $396,000 Ferrari to go pick up groceries once a week. No...a Kia will suffice, thank you.

 

[robbins.photo]

A superzoom is every focal length you need in one lens barrel, and that's WHY people want them,and why they buy them. By the tens of thousands. Given that MOST photos are never,ever printed, and are seen only on a computer or smartphone screen, the ultimate in optical quality is a needless extravagance for most people. It's like saying everybody "needs a $396,000 Ferrari to go pick up groceries once a week. No...a Kia will suffice, thank you.

Derrel, that's just silly. I could be perfectly happy picking up my groceries in a $391,000 Ferrari. Well, assuming my neighbor didn't have the more expensive one of course. But yup, other than that.. happy as a clam. Lol

That is a pretty good point though, for me a lot of what I do often involves cropping of photo's in post, so I really do want better optical quality when I can afford it. However if your not going to be cropping nearly as much, Derrel is quite correct in pointing out that you really won't need the end all be all of zoom lenses to get the job done.

 

[colnago1331]

A superzoom is every focal length you need in one lens barrel, and that's WHY people want them,and why they buy them. By the tens of thousands. Given that MOST photos are never,ever printed, and are seen only on a computer or smartphone screen, the ultimate in optical quality is a needless extravagance for most people. It's like saying everybody "needs a $396,000 Ferrari to go pick up groceries once a week. No...a Kia will suffice, thank you.

Sure, but if that's the underlying theory the built-in camera on the iPhone is more than enough. And nobody told the OP to get "the ultimate in optical quality". But he asked if there is any reason to own two lenses vs. one, and the optical quality lost by owning one lens is a reason . . . and a good one IMHO.

Here's a good note on one of the downsides of superzooms: Why does my 18-200mm not seem like it gets to 200mm? | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[KmH]

Why does my 18-200mm not seem like it gets to 200mm? | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[robbins.photo]

Sure, but if that's the underlying theory the built-in camera on the iPhone is more than enough. And nobody told the OP to get "the ultimate in optical quality". But he asked if there is any reason to own two lenses vs. one, and the optical quality lost by owning one lens is a reason . . . and a good one IMHO.

Well actually I'd tend to disagree on the notion that the underlying theory here is that an Iphone camera is more that sufficient, that's a pretty gross exaggeration really. Depending on what the lens is being used for and the consumer themselves a super zoom might be a good fit for them personally.

I wouldn't care to have one, since a lot of what I shoot particularly when it comes to telephoto I'll end up having to crop, sometimes heavily. Just one of the many joys of shooting wildlife I guess. So for me I want the best optical quality I can get to start with, based on my budgetary constraints of course.

For someone else who isn't cropping much at all, they might not even notice the difference in IQ. Some of that is based on the camera body as well, on my old D5100 for example I could shoot with a UV filter on and noticed no difference in IQ in about 98% of the shots, the only time I saw any difference was when there was a fairly powerful light source and it would tend to flare.

On my D5200 however, the difference in IQ between having a UV filter on and not having one on was noticeable. Same thing I've noticed with some lenses, some will work great on crop sensors but you'll see issues with them on full frame that you don't on the crop sensor format, even though they are designed to work with full frame. But read some lens reviews and they talk about how the corners are soft, etc - but a lot of times using that lens on a crop sensor you'll never see it because your using the center portion of the glass.

I guess in the final analysis having the super duper top of the line end all be all lens in each category would be great, but it just really isn't feasible for all of us. I try to make my own lens choices carefully based on the types of shooting situations I find myself in most often, trying to balance the final quality with my available budget.

But I guess if I were taking a lot of pictures where I was walking around town and I didn't need to crop much, having a single lens rather than multiple lenses would be a big advantage (less to carry) and I wouldn't really need the optical quality I would need if I were out shooting birds and I need to crop the snot out of the final image.

 

[Derrel]

Why does my 18-200mm not seem like it gets to 200mm? | byThom | Thom Hogan

Well, why does the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR-G Mark II Nikkor zoom lens only get to 130mm at the closest focusing distance???

The issue of focus breathing at closest focusing distance seems to be affecting Nikon's top of the range, $2,499 70-200 2.8 "pro" zoom as well....hmmm....

Which of you two fellows above wants to line up to be first to pi$$ all over the new 70-200 2.8 VR-II Nikkor??? Because...it doesn't achieve ANYWHERE NEAR 200mm in focal length when it's at minimum focusing distance. Huh...imagine that....you pay $2499 and don't get a 200mm lens at 200 at MFD!!!!

 

[Mach0]

Why does my 18-200mm not seem like it gets to 200mm? | byThom | Thom Hogan

Well, why does the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR-G Mark II Nikkor zoom lens only get to 130mm at the closest focusing distance???

The issue of focus breathing at closest focusing distance seems to be affecting Nikon's top of the range, $2,499 70-200 2.8 "pro" zoom as well....hmmm....

Which of you two fellows above wants to line up to be first to pi$$ all over the new 70-200 2.8 VR-II Nikkor??? Because...it doesn't achieve ANYWHERE NEAR 200mm in focal length when it's at minimum focusing distance. Huh...imagine that....you pay $2499 and don't get a 200mm lens at 200 at MFD!!!!

But it sure is sharp lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Why does my 18-200mm not seem like it gets to 200mm? | byThom | Thom Hogan

Well, why does the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR-G Mark II Nikkor zoom lens only get to 130mm at the closest focusing distance???

The issue of focus breathing at closest focusing distance seems to be affecting Nikon's top of the range, $2,499 70-200 2.8 "pro" zoom as well....hmmm....

Which of you two fellows above wants to line up to be first to pi$$ all over the new 70-200 2.8 VR-II Nikkor??? Because...it doesn't achieve ANYWHERE NEAR 200mm in focal length when it's at minimum focusing distance. Huh...imagine that....you pay $2499 and don't get a 200mm lens at 200 at MFD!!!!

Dear God.. it's almost like.. physics!

Ok, I must flee in terror now. Wait, need to grab a doughnut first. Ok, now, fleeing in terror.

 

[psyphris]

Read the Thom Hogan lens reviews for practical comments on various Nikon-made lenses.

Thanks for that resource! I've started going through his reviews and examples of shots from the lenses are great. I'm actually surprised at some of the lenses he chose to review and some he hasn't yet... either way he has quite the collection so thank you!