Suggest which lens to keep...

[viclam]

Hi all,

If you are given these 2 lenses to choose:

1) Nikon 18-200 VR
2) Nikon 17-55 2.8

Which one would you keep and why?

My problem:
1) 18-200 has VR and has the range in one single lens.
2) The optics on the 17-55 is IMO much better than the 18-200.
3) I travel with at most 2 lenses. (normally a super wide 12-24 and either the 18-200 or 17-55).
4) Finances doesn't allow me to keep both lenses.

thank you for your suggestions and advices in advance!

[giantcanopy]

Depends on usually whether you need the longer focal length vs the wider aperture more often. You might have to examine it within yourself. I am sure there are people who are perfectly at ease with just a 17-55mm

For me I always love the bit more focal length. But that is just me.

Ryan

[Legoz]

Yup... i would go with the 18-200 too.
I love the flexibility... and really, it produce decent enough pics. =)

[nikonvision]

Yup, I would second or third that I'd keep the 18-200. It has been my everyday lens.

[Pokka]

do u take alot of portraits? if yes, keep the tamron. the f2.8 will give u the bokeh u desire.

[Parchiao]

Keep the better lens, 17-55mm, anytime. Besides, you will enjoy your photography more.

[viclam]

Bro, not using a Tamron la It's the Nikon 17-55 2.8.

Thanks for the advice. I do travel with the camera. Portrait shots normally only when I travel.

Personally I like the 17-55 but the 18-200 is so useful (especially no need to change or bring along another lens on a holiday)

Originally Posted by Pokka do u take alot of portraits? if yes, keep the tamron. the f2.8 will give u the bokeh u desire.

My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31686577@N00/

[5kywalker]

Well, just my $0.02 or less worth, I think the two lenses have two different purposes and it depends on what matters more to you, the coverage? Or the IQ? Think many people have talked about this before, but somehow, I understand it's a difficult decision to make. If you have the money and resources, why not have both? First off, the weight of the lenses is very significantly different. You don't want to travel with the 17-55mm F2.8. However, it does not give you the lens coverage required when you travel, you'll never know when you'll miss a shot because of the limitation in range. Lastly, do you need F2.8 as compared to the F3.5~F5.6 of the 18-200mm? Well, all in all, see which lens you prefer and feel more comfortable using. Sometimes, it's not the Image Quality (17-55mm) that matters but to capture the moment that's more important (18-200mm VR with the extra reach).

[zac08]

Originally Posted by viclam Hi all, If you are given these 2 lenses to choose: 1) Nikon 18-200 VR 2) Nikon 17-55 2.8 Which one would you keep and why? My problem: 1) 18-200 has VR and has the range in one single lens. 2) The optics on the 17-55 is IMO much better than the 18-200. 3) I travel with at most 2 lenses. (normally a super wide 12-24 and either the 18-200 or 17-55). 4) Finances doesn't allow me to keep both lenses. thank you for your suggestions and advices in advance!

Just ask yourself.

Which DO YOU use most often?

[Pokka]

Originally Posted by viclam Bro, not using a Tamron la It's the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Thanks for the advice. I do travel with the camera. Portrait shots normally only when I travel. Personally I like the 17-55 but the 18-200 is so useful (especially no need to change or bring along another lens on a holiday) My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31686577@N00/

Judging from your flickr, I can see you shoot alot of shots wide. You know the answer which 1 to keep

[ortega]

if it was my choice, i would keep the Nikon 17-55 2.8

[jimbok]

Originally Posted by ortega if it was my choice, i would keep the Nikon 17-55 2.8

Second that. Not really amazed by the 18-200 VR IMO in terms of IQ, just a good lens for travel.

[jnet6]

What you like to shoot and see which lenses output you like the most, then keep it.

[skyline1088]

i would say keep the 17-55, the better valued one... after all, it's a gold ringed lens.
personally i feel that the 18-200 produces good quality pictures, but to a certain extent, not sharp enough.. (maybe for my liking lah). produces vignetting often too.

[gymak90]

Really depends on your shooting patterns. If you're using the tele end more often, then have the 18-200.
But i would very much prefer to keep 17-55. It is a far better lens.

[FlashD3vil]

I feel that the 17-55mm 2.8 is a gd lens,
able to serve you sharp images.
On the other hand, the 18-200mm VR
comes in handy when you are up for travelling
purposes and don't wish to carry lots of lenses.

If you are upgrading to Full frame bodies, then I
suggest you to keep that 18-200mm VR as a
second(travel body) since a Full frame body
would let you frame a wider view on a 24-70mm 2.8?
Just my views...

[AbangR]

For travelling, I'd keep the 17-55.
How often do you use the high tele side of the 200mm?

To share my experience from a recent trip, I was carrying D40 with:
1. Sigma 10-20
2. Tamron 17-50 f2.8

For tele + movie, I had Canon S5 IS.
So, instead of changing lens, I grab the Canon to shoot tele, which I found pretty decent.
This is much quicker and the weight of the Canon PnS is almost the same as 1 lens.
Plus, I get a movie capability....
Since I just upgraded to D90, I will travel with one DSLR body only with movie

[erictan8888]

i would keep the 17-55.... the image quality over the 18-200 is too much to forgo...
hope i have not added to your confusion.. hee hee

[MaZaCA]

Originally Posted by viclam 4) Finances doesn't allow me to keep both lenses.

practical answer.... keep the 18-200, or sell the 17-55 and keep the 18-200. u will have about another 1k of $$ or more (depending whether u are buying new or used, or, if u already have these lens, depending on your selling price...)