[RedBarron]

I recently got a D7000 and my GF said she would get a lens for my birthday. Something less than 700 bucks. I have been really looking at the 18-200 just for the fact it is such a convenient lens. Any one on here have the 18-200, tell me your thought on it.

[rgrovr]

Its a great all around walkabout lens. If you had to travel with just one - it would be that. I started with the 18-200VR back in my D90 days and enjoyed it immensely.

If you're into video a good Prime lens will be awesome, either the 35 or 50mm f1.4.. they are gorgeous for low-light applications as well. The 50mm is well within your budget but the new 35mm is about $1,600.

Logically after that you'll want to move onto the Holy Trinity, Hebrew Trinity, 3 Ninjas of lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8. They are quite expensive but worth every penny if your photography hobby gets more serious. Maybe next year's birthday

[whyrms]

If you can afford it, always goes for the Trifecta! It's a good investment because if you ever decide to switch to Full Frame, it'll still be useable and awesome.

However, I don't think your gf will be able to afford it. And you must face reality...

If money is an issue, and you absolutely want a lens that's a bang for your buck that's good to walk around with, I would recommend the new sigma 17-50mm. Yeah, you're thinking, I already got that range with a kit lens that's 100 bucks. Well, no you don't. The sigma is fix focal at 2.8 with Flouride element and is sharp sharp sharp and minimal ghosting and flare, with reduced CA. Look at it on DXO mark, you'll see it beating nikon 17-55mm and almost on par with the nikon 24-70mm (which is Nikon sharpest zoom. period.). All that for a lens that's 669 dollars. I think that's the best bang for the buck you can find right now. Not many reviews on it right now, cause it's relatively new, but the reviews that are out are all positive. The new F-element from Sigma is really good, AF is good, and the Optical stabilizer is good too.

I know it's not as versatile as the 18-200mm because it doesn't have the long end, but the 18-200 has notorious lens creep, non fix apature, and so so IQ. I hardly ever find myself wanting to go to 200 unless I'm an avid wild life photographer, and if i'm an avid wild life photographer, I would not be looking at the 18-200 anyway.

Anyway that's all i got to say, cheerios!

[BillLee]

the 35mm f/1.8 is only $200. i dont think he'll need the f/1.4 one.

But yeah i would get the 18-200mm, pretty nice lens overall. i still use mine.

[rodi]

what lens do you already have?

[BMW F22]

The 18-200mm is great if you just want a versatile lens. If you want better image quality or need larger aperture then go with the more expensive lenses. IMO (and this may be just me), if you do go the multiple lens route, I would have some over lapping in the ranges. For example, go with a 17-35 or 17-40, the 24-70, and then 70-200.

[dcstep]

Get the zoom. As you develop your photography you may want a specific prime or a better zoom in a more concentrated zoom range. Start with this setup and let your development and interests dictate future purchases.

You'll likely replace this lens sometime in the future, if you continue to get deeper into photography, but it's not possible for you or us to help you make a better choice at this point.

Dave

[RedBarron]

Thanks for the input everyone.

As some asked, all i currently have are primes, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8

[- Paul -]

The 18-200 is a great lens and works well when all you want to carry is the camera. Can shoot most subjects without farting about swapping lenses.

[Inspired]

Anyone have any thoughts on the new 28-300mm F3.5-5.6?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-28-300mm...0510060&sr=8-8

Really considering the 17-55 F2.8 but it seems like it will overlap with my 12-24 WA lens..

[Litos]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Logically after that you'll want to move onto the Holy Trinity, Hebrew Trinity, 3 Ninjas of lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8.

i got the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 VRII

both lenses combined were almost $4000.

best $4000 i've ever spent.

the 14-24 is next on my kill list - been buying up other toys for my 2 cars so i kind of put it off for now.

anyways, for $700 i'd get the 18-200 VRII every single time - no questions asked.

very nice on the wide end and zooms flawlessly to 200MM. the VRII is a dream come true and makes up for the fact that it's not a high end lens.

the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is a great little lens also, BUT, you will definately miss getting those long shots.

i CANNOT fathom doing pohotography without shooting wide open at 2.8 at 200MM

[ChrisK]

+1

I agree, I love my 18-200.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Litos

...

i CANNOT fathom doing pohotography without shooting wide open at 2.8 at 200MM

... and I'll never understand that need. I get really sweet bokeh at f/4.

However, I DO have the 500mm f/4 and if I couldn't afford that I'd be considering a 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. Either that or the 300/f2.8 with the TCs.

Here's something interesting to do. Go to Flickr or Smug Mug or any searchable image database that has lens specs and EXIF. Most images taken with f/2.8 lens are shot at f/4 and smaller apertures.

Dave

[RedBarron]

I got a nikon 18-200 II and Tokina 12-24 they should both be here monday, YAY!!!

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

... and I'll never understand that need. I get really sweet bokeh at f/4.

However, I DO have the 500mm f/4 and if I couldn't afford that I'd be considering a 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. Either that or the 300/f2.8 with the TCs.

Here's something interesting to do. Go to Flickr or Smug Mug or any searchable image database that has lens specs and EXIF. Most images taken with f/2.8 lens are shot at f/4 and smaller apertures.

Dave

I saw a review on the nikon 70-200 2.8 current version, and they were saying that the DOF isn't as narrow as one would expect. The review said it was because nikon chose to substitute less vignetting at wide open for less DOF.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by The1

I saw a review on the nikon 70-200 2.8 current version, and they were saying that the DOF isn't as narrow as one would expect. The review said it was because nikon chose to substitute less vignetting at wide open for less DOF.

Exposure 0.022 sec (1/45)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 280

[dcstep]

Nice.