Looking for a new zoom lens for a DX frame Nikon, should I get Nikon 18-200mm or something else?

Question

(I thought this question would already have been asked/answered here, but if it is I can't find it.)

I'll soon be doing some handheld indoor/low-light photography, so I want a VR lens to help with that.

I currently have the following lenses:

• Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX - ok, but it doesn't have VR
• Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG - cheap and slow, doesn't have VR, and I often find myself wanting to go wider than 70mm.
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - ok, and good for low light, but at 30mm it can mean getting pretty close for head shots.

I have two camera bodies: a D300s and a D70.

So, my choices seem to be:

Option 1: 18-200mm VR, cost ~£545
Lens: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF DX VR 17/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell

Option 2: 18-105mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£460
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR for ~£220, 15/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell

Option 3: 16-85mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£675
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR for ~£435, 16/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell

Option 4: Something else?

Comparing Option 1 and 2, Thom's review scores suggest the 18-200mm is better (although he still "highly recommends" the other two), and Ken Rockwell suggests go for the 18-200mm if the extra ~£100 isn't an issue.

Comparing Option 1 and 3, Thom's scores are a little closer, and Ken still suggests the 18-200mm, and spending £675 is really in the more-than-I-want-to-spend zone.

So, signs are pointing towards the 18-200mm being the best choice, but that's mostly only from two opinions (albeit from authorative/popular professionals).

Would anyone here recommend anything different?
(Or should I stop wasting time and just order the 18-200mm?)

More Details:

I'll happily photograph most things, but my main focus is landscapes, trees, and related stuff, and it's generally either handheld or on a beanbag. So yeah, VR will be a help when in a forest, or just random handheld shots.

But I am actively looking at upgrading now due to photographing soon at an event, which will be mostly people shots, so that is a factor too.

The event itself is all day long, will be both indoors and outside, so could be a range of different conditions and lighting types. However, the photos are for recording the event, and unlikely to be used past a web gallery, so print-quality shots are not essential.

Looking on dpreview (here and here), it seems the D300s might produce acceptable results (for web-gallery use) at ISO 3200/6400 with Noise Reduction? (The the exposure calculator gives 1/125s at f/4 for that.)

Given that, would any of the f/3.5-5.6 lenses above therefore be good enough, or is it pushing things a bit far?

Answer 1

It sounds like you want to be photographing people, and VR won't help anywhere near as much as a fast aperture for that kind of indoor photography.

For example, based on this exposure calculator, your shutter speed at ISO 1600 under "domestic interiors at night" lighting will be 1/15 at f/5.6 and 1/30 at f/4 -- neither of which is fast enough to stop even modest human motion, and VR won't help with that. Keep in mind that those zooms are only f/3.5 or f/4 at the very widest focal lengths.

I believe your options are:

• Fast prime (e.g. 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8), which would be well within your budget.
• Pro f/2.8 zoom, which is not in your budget for buying but probably is for renting.

The former would get you a shutter speed of ~1/180 and VR won't be necessary. You could probably even back off the ISO a bit.

w.r.t. More Details

None of the lenses you propose can be relied on to get good portraits inside. You may get lucky (e.g., exceptionally bright, people very still) but if you're being relied on as an event photographer, that's a huge risk. Keep in mind you'll be shooting at f/5.6 if you zoom in much. And VR can't be relied on for shake-free shots at 1/15 and 1/30; you'll have a higher hit rate, but it's no guarantee. Nikon will claim 4 stops improvement in workable shutter speed, but it's uncommon to actually get that.

I recommend you read this blog post over at LensRentals. It covers common mistakes for first-time event photographers, and I'm concerned that a number of them may be developing already.

Answer 2

Reid is right - that VR does not help at all in stopping motion. So if you are taking pictures of people/moving objects then you will still get blurry pictures because of object movement/motion.

But, just in case that you are taking picture of static object or people who can stand/sit still and really need VR, I would recommend the AF-S 18-200.

For head shots, I very much recommend AF-S 70-200 VR (I or II). If that is beyond your budget, get the Sigma. It has f/2.8 AND VR (or OS in Sigma).

Answer 3

The 18-200 was a fun lens on my D50. I took a lot of memorable photos and it was great for "walk-around" and/or Travel. I missed not having a super-zoom with this range when I went full-frame. It's got technical limitations - like being slow and not much good in low light. Overall it was a nice lens for those times when I didn't want to think too hard about the details and just enjoy shooting.

As a compliment, on my budget, I also had a 50mm f/1.8 prime (~100.00). It was very sharp, and fast which worked well in the dark. It was also small and packed/carried easily - an easy pick for a first/only prime.

Answer 4

Completely agree with Reid... in this situation a fast prime is the way to go. I'd only consider a lens that was 3.5 - 5.6 indoors if I was planning on shooting with a flash... i used to do quite a bit of corporate work and the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime really came through.

Answer 5

I've purchased a number of Sigma lenses over the years and always found them to be excellent quality considering they're usually half the price of an equivalent Nikon and because the Sigma lenses are cheaper you can afford to buy the better ones.

The only situation where I'd consider the Nikon lenses over the Sigma is if cost was of no concern.

For portraits my trusty Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 has done sterling service over the years with never a complaint. It's my choice of lens for general use too.

For a DX format camera the 70-300 actually ends up as a 105-450 which means it can only really be used outdoors. I used to have one and got rid off it quite quickly, not a useful lens for me.

For your situation and budget I'd look at saving costs and opting for the 'lesser' Sigma brand but getting a bigger aperture lens like...

Goes off to Sigma UK website

Oh... they don't make it anymore. Maybe a second hand but quality lens from eBay will be the way to go. Sorry.

Answer 6

If you want a zoom, I'd suggest the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS for about 400 euros; there's also a Tamron for about 20% more. The f/2.8 aperture is slow for people pictures in low light, but if the pictures will only be on the web, I'd just use you 30mm and crop- the loss of resolution won't make a difference. For your other needs, the 17-50 f/2.8s would be great. I have the Canon equivalent and love it.

And as for Ken Rockwell, let's just say that there is not a whole lot of respect for him on the net.

A good source of lens review is www.photozone.de

Answer 7

I have the Nikon 18-200 vr. It is very (VERY!) soft compared to my vintage manual lenses.

You already have the 17-70mm, just use some flash. Bounce or diffuse it so it's not obnoxious. Flash can probably freeze the image at two stops over the natural lighting.

I usually take the big aperture lens and shoot at max ISO, Then at home I see a lot of grainy, blurry, images. A gentle fill flash is much better and gives more aperture options.

Answer 8

Yes, stop wasting time and get the Nikon 18-200mm VR (I use it with a D50 and a D60). It's a fantastic lens.

Here are a few samples that were taken with my Nikon 18-200mm VR lens.

• Presidential Dog
• Purple Lilly
• Busy Bee
• Late Night Camping

... low lighting handheld examples ...

• Bridge to Lower Falls (Stone bridge in the woods)
• Neon Sign at Night
• Old Church at Night
• On the Strip (Paris Casino in Las Vegas)
• Fremont Street (Las Vegas)
• Another Fremont Street

These are with a Sigma 180mm Macro Prime

• Big Bee
• Busy Bees
• Little Flower

And now for a few with a Sigma 120-400mm OS

• Sleeping Roo
• Little Nephew

Here is a Deepzoom Collection with more photos. But it's a mixed set so I'm not able to say which lens was used for each shot.

• Deepzoom Favorites

If it counts for much a friend of mine has the Sigma 18-200mm OS (He has a D40) and from what I can tell it's just as good as the Nikon.