Nikon 18-200 for D300s?

Hi All, I have recently purchased a D300s and am currently using the kit lenses from my D60; namely the 18-55 and 55-200. The image quality does seem to be very good but I am thinking about upgrading to better glass. Does the 18-200DX give me any advantage in quality of image or should I think about something else? I do mostly landscape work but do shoot abstracts and other styles of images on occasion. Any advice would be appreciated.

The reviews I've read and people I've spoken too are quite good regarding this lens. I had the 18-55 and 55-200 and got many good sharp photos with them and the fact that they have VR is great. What I found annoying was changing lenses all the time which the 18-200 would certainly eliminate. I'm contemplating what wide angle lens to buy, but don't think I personally can justify $1000 on the 18-200, so I probably will get the 18-55

- Luke

You may want to look at the Nikkor 16-85 as I have been very pleased with that lens for my landscape work on my D300.
Here is Tom Hogan's review of that lens: http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

Some other good sites for lens reviews are:
http://www.slrgear.com
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews

I have the 18-200mm and I am very happy with it. This is the ideal all purpose lens for traveling as you can do most things with a single lens. When I bought the 105 Nikkor macro lens a few months ago, I did a non scientific comparison shot with the 18-200 and found the zoom lens is almost as sharp as the macro lens.

John, as Luke suggests, the 18-200 is not necessarily a step up in image quality, but it is as far as convenience is concerned. This is not to say that the lens has poor image quality, it produces excellent results, as do the 18-55 and 55-200. If you are strictly looking for better image quality, lens construction and faster optics, then you need to look at Nikon's professional lenses. Results from the 80-200 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 are going to be noticeably better than the 18-200, especially at 200mm. An alternative to the 18-55 that is slightly faster, has a little more reach, a metal lens mount and gives very crisp images is the 18-70 3.5-4.5. If you do not see an FX body in your future, any of the lenses, including the 16-85 would make a good choice. But with the exception of the 70-200 or the 80-200, you will not be getting "better glass" and all that this term encompasses. The 17-55 2.8 is excellent, the 24-70 2.8 is about as sharp a lens as you are going to find in that focal length, and the 24-85 2.8-4 is also fast and sharp - and all of these will cover a full frame DSLR. The downsides are that for the most part, better glass will be bigger, heavier, and much more costly compared to their more modest counterparts.

Thank You to all of the people who replied. That's the beauty of this site. When you ask for help or advice; you get it! Luke, I didn't realize the 18-200DX was going for that much money. I see them priced in the $750 range. Even at that price; it is a huge chunk of money and I won't make a purchase decision lightly! Thanks Gary for your comparison with your new 105. Jim, I have heard good things on the 16-85 and other than the convenience of the 18-200DX; it might be a better choice for the landscape pursuits. Gene, thanks for the advice and I should have thought about the extremely high cost of Nikkor pro grade glass as it will make a difference. The cost was a consideration with the purchase of the D300s instead of the D700 as with the full frame camera I would have immediately needed to upgrade to FX lenses with the consequent additional costs. After all the help, I am considering the 16-85 with a 70-200 purchase when (and if!) I have the funds. Again; thanks for the responses. I do appreciate them

John,

Found myself in the same quandry 2 years ago when I got my D80. Ended up with the 16-85 and it is a wonderful lens. Very sharp for a prosumer lens and light enough to walk around comfortably. Today I have the D700 and the 24-70 2.8 and just got my 70-200 VRII 2.8 today. One great piece of glass!!

Even though I have the pro glass I still take out my D80 and the 16-85 gives me a very similar image quality. The 18-200 has more reach but sharpness varies considerably over such a wide zoom range.

Glenn

Luke, I didn't realize the 18-200DX was going for that much money. I see them priced in the $750 range.

My numbers are a bit old... when it first came out it was in the mid-high $900 range. The imported can be bought on B&H for $720, but obviously it's still pricey for what many use as a "walk-around" lens

In October 2007 I bought my 18-200mm DX lens for 694.50 from Amazon.com, I just checked and now they want $748 for the VR II version.

I love this lens for walking around, much easier than my 200-400mm VR, but I wouldn't expect to photograph birds with it unless they are captive in a zoo or rehab place.

I like it much more than the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF Macro lens I have (which I rarely use and should sell), it has a switch where you can turn the macro on & off.

John, when I only want to take one lens, my 18-200 is what goes on my D200 or D300. It is quite sharp, and at smaller F stops even more than acceptable at 200mm, its weakest focal length. Hiking trips, concerts, fireworks displays, or just walking around, I cannot think of a better lens - especially on the D300, since it seems to focus better in low light compared to the D200.

You might want to consider the used market, since these are typically selling on craigslist for around $500, with as much as a $600 asking price. The newer VRII model sounds nice, but I have not seen any reviews that indicate that there is any significant difference other than the zoom lock button at 18mm. Not sure that it would be worthwhile buying this over a clean used one. However, you might want to take a look at the Tamron 18-250, which has been well received by many reviewers. It's strength is in the midrange of its focal length, with weaker, but acceptable performance at the extremes. It does focus a little slower in low light, but on a D300 it should be fine. It does not have an internal motor, nor does it offer VR. It's price is in the $350 range, and offers a useful extra 50mm on the long end, and a macro mode that gets you to within 18" of your subject for a 1:3.5 magnification. Not bad for a superzoom. It does suffer a bit when used wide open, so just set it for F8 and forget about it - the high ISO performance of the D300s should give you decent pictures that are comparable to what you would get with the Nikon 18-200.

Here are a couple of reviews that you might find helpful:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/294-tamron-af-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-macro-nikon-lab-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/294-tamron-af-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-macro-nikon-lab-test-report--review

Thanks again for the comments everyone. I recently discovered that an older Sigma 70-300 lens that I had on my Nikon N70 35mm will work well on the D300s and I am really excited about this as it is an excellent piece of glass and the "price is Right!" I am now leaning toward the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 as a good carry lens but OMG the cost!!! might be a year or three before it happens!