what after 18-105...


#1
Hi guys... I had the D7000 with the kit lens.. but seems it is not enough... SO now my problem is what after this lens... Do I get the 18-200 or something better? please advice..thanks
 

Jun 6, 2011
265
0
0
Tampines
#2
I'm no nikon user. But here's a tip, if you don't know what you want or what you need, means you don't need to get more lenses. If you're sure of your range, then buy accordingly. Eg. Landscape, buy wide angle. Sports, tele-zoom. All in one, 18-200 or walkabout lenses like 24-70. So ask yourself first, what do you shoot and what range are you shooting at.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#3
Hi guys... I had the D7000 with the kit lens.. but seems it is not enough... SO now my problem is what after this lens... Do I get the 18-200 or something better? please advice..thanks
not enough as in this lens not good enough for you?

if that is the case, try rent the 17-55f2.8 to try it out
 

undergrd

Senior Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,978
7
38
North-East
#4
TS needs to elaborate more by what is not enough? In terms of range or quality???
 

#5
my problem is... Do i buy the 18-200 or the 55-200/300, I need to know the real difference between these 2 lenses... Cos the 18-2200 is only longer than my present 18-105.. anything else that I need to note? cos I am still a novice DSLR guy.. THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK..
 

Johnbon

New Member
Oct 4, 2011
260
1
0
#6
my problem is... Do i buy the 18-200 or the 55-200/300, I need to know the real difference between these 2 lenses... Cos the 18-2200 is only longer than my present 18-105.. anything else that I need to note? cos I am still a novice DSLR guy.. THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK..
i am also quite new. I got a relatively cheap 35mm f1.8 lens for night/low light shots. If u got $$$ can get f1.4.

U want more zoom get 70-300 instead of 55-300. Just a couple of hundred more only but suppose to have better performance
 

Aug 28, 2008
590
0
0
singapore, northeast
#7
Johnbon said:
i am also quite new. I got a relatively cheap 35mm f1.8 lens for night/low light shots. If u got $$$ can get f1.4.

U want more zoom get 70-300 instead of 55-300. Just a couple of hundred more only but suppose to have better performance
35mm f/1.4? :lol: :lol:

Ya TS 'not enuff' means what? Aperture not enuff? Tele- no enuff? Or wide- no enuff???

If so since u have 18-105, maybe can 'bite the missile' , invest in 14-24 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 :) :) :p :p
 

Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#8
35mm f/1.4? :lol: :lol:

Ya TS 'not enuff' means what? Aperture not enuff? Tele- no enuff? Or wide- no enuff???

If so since u have 18-105, maybe can 'bite the missile' , invest in 14-24 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 :) :) :p :p
:confused: You can't read or what? TS already said:

"Do i buy the 18-200 or the 55-200/300, I need to know the real difference between these 2 lenses".

Aiyaya....

BTW 18-200 is good enough if convenience is important to you, TS. Optical inferior to 18-105 and 55-200/300 in their respective ranges. Also very expensive. There has been reports of breakdown of flex circuit (search this up).

And with 18-200 there is significant focal length breathing - at 200mm near min focus the lens behave more like 135mm - a trick pulled by designers to make superzoom compact and focus close through intentional shortening of focal length. Doesn't happen with 55-200/300 - but then the min focus distance is longer.

55-200 and 55-300 essentially identical in the overlap range. I suggest you buy used for 55-200, very cheap in BnS. 55-200 much better value.

If you go 55-300 route, probably better to go 70-300. Get VR in all instances.
 

cichlid

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2006
5,066
3
38
S'pore
#9
TS, i think you have to know what you want.

Bigger aperture or longer focal length?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
my problem is... Do i buy the 18-200 or the 55-200/300, I need to know the real difference between these 2 lenses... Cos the 18-2200 is only longer than my present 18-105.. anything else that I need to note? cos I am still a novice DSLR guy.. THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK..
18-200 is a all in one lens, works well if you want to cover a lot of focal length without changing lens, you can replace your existing lens with this lens.

a 50-200/300 lens is to work with another lens which able to provide you a longer reach, so you need to keep your existing lens too.

your lens arsenal is to suit your need and your style of shooting, nobody can really tell you what lens you should buy or own, only you have the answer you want, and you need to find it out yourself.
 

Xiao_shin

New Member
Sep 21, 2002
1,113
0
0
43
Visit site
#11
Try to find out what focal length you used the most. Should give you a clue what to get next.
 

#12
I say if i would like to shoot more landscape in trips... I should look for 55-200/300? or something else.. I need something of a different spec than 18-105... thanks.. or use wide scope lenses with abit of zoom?
 

CTN

New Member
May 1, 2006
515
0
0
Bishan
#13
try different lenses to see what you prefer lor,
for me, after 5-6 years, my shooting now revolves around the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, all f/1.8,
I find that these 3 lenses is light enough, easy on the pocket, and am satisfied with the IQs
 

Miao

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,069
1
38
#14
What after 18/105 .... Hmmmmm .....
What you want after 18/105 would be a better question to yourself.

Zoom with less distortion, light ... 16/85 vr
Zoom with low light, less distortion, heavy ...... 17/55 f2.8
All in one zoom ....... 18/200 (worst performance)
Prime ......... Best quality and light (force you to think before you shoot)

So if you cannot answer yourself .. Hang on to 18/105
 

Apr 26, 2010
727
0
0
34
Telok Blangah
#15
I am using 35mm f1.8 as a walkabout lens and I am happy with it!

Perhaps it will suit you as well~ :)
 

Last edited:

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#18
Thanks for all e feedback.. I will definitely keep the kit lens but may Buy the 55-200.. Think this is good enough a combination?
yes...seriously..if you dontknow what to buy..that means you probably dont need it. If you MUST BUY then best is to buy another lens that is longer or shorter than current so at least you have more range to play with.. so yea 55-200 may be good for you. But seriously..dont buy for the sake of buying..unless you really dont care that few hundred or thousands
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#19
Thanks for all e feedback.. I will definitely keep the kit lens but may Buy the 55-200.. Think this is good enough a combination?
The answer may be a very subjective one. Some people feels that it would be a good combination since they do not need fast auto focusing (for sports, fast moving subjects, etc) and do not shoot indoors or low lights often. But if you ask me between 55-200 and 18-200, I'd choose the former. 18-200 maybe very convenient since you do not need to change lenses, but image quality-wise 55-200 VR is better. But like some suggested, 70-300 VR is quicker in Auto-focusing, gives you longer reach (100mm more), doesn't overlap your kit lenses more. It is entirely up to you.
 

Last edited:

NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#20
I say if i would like to shoot more landscape in trips... I should look for 55-200/300? or something else.. I need something of a different spec than 18-105... thanks.. or use wide scope lenses with abit of zoom?
Landscape ? tokina 11-16mm , less than 1K for new....
 

Top Bottom