18-200 mm lens [SIGMA]

[ProbirPune]

I bought a Nikon D5100 with a kit lens (18-55mm). Then I purchased a Nikon zoom 55-300mm. But it is somewhat inconvenient to keep swapping lenses. I have read that it may help to buy a more all-in-one lens like
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM as I will not have to change lenses.
What would you advise?
PK

[Stagecoach]

I used an 18-200mm (Nikon) for many years as my main lens and loved the range. I used it at the wider end far more than the long because I concentrated more on landscape and close working.

It very much comes down to what you want to shoot, at times you may want wider and at times longer. The operation of changing lenses is also going to be affected by how much you are prepared to carry around and the sort of environmental conditions you shoot in.

[george013]

I bought my first Nikon, D80, in 2008. With a Sigma 18-200. I brought it back after a view days and got me a Nikon 18-200. A huge difference and double the price. I could not tell you the differences at this moment. But don't expect to much on the long end.
But apart from that, 18-200 is a wonderful walkaround.
George

[JR1]

I bought a Nikon D5100 with a kit lens (18-55mm). Then I purchased a Nikon zoom 55-300mm. But it is somewhat inconvenient to keep swapping lenses. I have read that it may help to buy a more all-in-one lens like
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM as I will not have to change lenses.
What would you advise?
PK

It isn't that simple, you have not said what you shoot anyway so advice is hard.

There is no one size fits all.

I have 14-24, 70-200, 80-400 and 150-600 so ideally I would like a 14-600 f2.8

WHAT you shoot has a lot to do with what you buy, and don't forget the apature

[Shadowman]

I've carried two camera bodies to offset all the lens changing, however there will be times when you don't want to carry all that gear with you. Sometimes carrying a small point and shoot will suffice for the shorter focal lengths.

[JR1]

I've carried two camera bodies to offset all the lens changing, however there will be times when you don't want to carry all that gear with you. Sometimes carrying a small point and shoot will suffice for the shorter focal lengths.

100% agree with your comments

[Dave Humphries]

I've told this story before, so apologies to those that know it.

In 2009, I bought my first DSLR, after shooting with a bridge camera with a 10x zoom range (28 - 300mm equiv.), so I knew the kit lens would be a constant frustration and bought the D5000 'body only' and added a Sigma 18 - 250mm (27 - 450mm equiv.), however, a lot of my shots at the telephoto end were noticeably mis-focused (in front)

I persevered with it for months, even sending it (and the camera also) to Sigma twice for 'calibration' of AF, I also went back to the shop and we tried another example of the Sigma lens, but nothing improved matters, so the shopkeeper agreed to swap and supply the Nikon 18-200mm (27 - 300mm equiv.) lens - I obviously had to make up the price difference, but consider myself lucky - and a lesson was learnt.

I have only bought Nikon lenses since!

So you can guess my advice, particularly if you want to shoot at the long end.

Occasionally I am tempted by Sigma's offerings - on paper they do look good, but then I force myself to relive the experience and ask myself if I am willing to possibly go through it all again.

More recent cameras that have AF micro-adjust feature might be able to compensate, but I still read stories 'on the net' of people going through what I did
Not sure if your D5100 has it, but my D5000 didn't.

[ajohnw]

The problem with zooms is once they get past something like 3:1 image quality tends to drop off very noticeably in some cases. I would be inclined to say very definitely at 10:1. The question then is are they better than say a bridge camera or something similar that covers the same focal length range, in this case 27-300mm FF equivalent. My general feeling is that they may well be. ISO/noise for one is likely to be a lot better. Optics maybe little or no difference but i would find that surprising.

I'm currently making my mind up about this area having bought a Tamron 14-150mm for M 4/3. My initial impression is that I can sometimes see differences even at my usual web size of 1250 px wide. The way I usually rate lenses is to be able crop to double the focal length if needed and still have a good quality image. Even more ideally. I suspect that is dubious on any 10:1 zoom unless the subject matter happens to be suitable and PP can cure problems.

Having just read Dave's post I would go for the Nikon lens as well going on the tests I looks at - DX VR II.

John
-

[proseak]

I have the 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM and the quality is generally pretty good, except at the long end, wide open; stopping down just one click helps a lot.

I have a second body on which I change lenses - 10/24, 55/250, 50mm but the 18/250 is my walkaround.

[rpcrowe]

I've carried two camera bodies to offset all the lens changing, however there will be times when you don't want to carry all that gear with you. Sometimes carrying a small point and shoot will suffice for the shorter focal lengths.

I totally agree with Shadowman. But, might throw in a couple of observations...

1. The wide focal range (like 10-1) often don't have the best IQ, especially on the long and short ends. However, what not satisfactory for me might be just fine for another photographer...

2. The wide focal range lenses ALWAYS are slow at their maximum focal length. An f/6.3 aperture is pretty darn slow and it is at the longer focal lengths that you need the fastest shutter speed in order to achieve sharp imagery hand-held...

3. The wide focal length lenses often have slower and very possibly less accurate auto-focus. I demand very fast and very accurate AF which I get from my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (as well as my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L prime lenses)...

Instead of using a P&S like Shadowman suggests as an alternate, I would think that a bridge camera might be the answer. My son-in-law uses a Canon Powershot SX50 HS and gets pretty decent results. He came back from his African safari with shots like this...



BTW: Like Peter, I commonly shoot with two camera bodies. My standard setup for general photography is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 7D bodies. That focal range will cover 90% or more of my normal shooting and I am quite happy with this pair of lenses. I am 74-years old and will be 75 in June of 2015. I still can carry a pair of bodies and two lenses. In fact the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and a second body weighs just about what a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens would weigh alone. The cost is pretty equivalent also...

A thought is that you could possibly buy a refurbished (which is the way I buy all my cameras) D5100 body and then use the two lenses that you already own... There are many positive things about shooing with a pair of bodies but, one that I will mention is that this is insurance against missing important shots due to camera malfunction.

I fell on a slippery slope on Alaska's Kenai pennsula and broke my Canon 40D. If I did not have my second camera (a 30D) I would have missed out on images from that photogenic area,

On a trip to China several years ago, a fellow tour member fell and broke his Nikon. He missed out on photography in Xi'an (Terracotta Warriors) and The Li River with its beautiful views. He finally had to purchase a camera in Hong Kong, several cities later...

[mrinmoyvk]

I bought a Nikon D5100 with a kit lens (18-55mm). Then I purchased a Nikon zoom 55-300mm. But it is somewhat inconvenient to keep swapping lenses. I have read that it may help to buy a more all-in-one lens like
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM as I will not have to change lenses.
What would you advise?
PK

Have you been using a DSLR before or is this the first?
If you have already used a DSLR then only you know what do you shoot more and what is the importance of primes.

If this is your first DSLR, I would suggest to stick to only 18-55 and return another lens. It is a good versatile lens and too much under estimated. It gets brilliantly sharp photos. Although the zoom is very less. It is is good enough to start with.

Over course of time like 1000-2000 clicks, you will understand what you are more interested in.

1. Landscapes (kit lens is enough unless you want to go professional, else get a Nikon 10-24)
2. Portraits (kit lens is enough unless you want to go professional, else get Nikon 50mm & Nikon 85mm primes)
3. Wild life (Nikon 70-300)
4. Nothing specific, I shoot everything (Nikon 18-200, do not go for 18-300, it is damn slow in focusing even slower than your 55-300 which is hell lot frustrating)

Believe me primes are always better choice if you know what you want. Else any cheap lens is good to go with.

I hope you have return policy for 55-300, try shooting in dark and you will understand why I am asking this. I don't want to discourage you but I had returned my 55-300 the very second day as I found it slower than my Nikon Coolpix L110 in focusing in dark. Might be the newer version of 55-300 is better. Not sure which you have.

[IzzieK]

The 18-55mm is a very versatile lens. I always have it in my second body. The 18-200mm is, in my opinion a very good versatile lens for when I shoot airplanes at the airshow or in one of our airplanes. Anything longer is completely unusable for my need although I have other lenses. Depends on what you shoot really...as John said, even a simple point and shoot is suitable. I use my point and shoot when I go travelling. LA airport is very strict when it comes to "professional looking" cameras but will not bat an eyelid when you have a point and shoot in your hands.

[ajohnw]

There is an alternative that might suite the OP. I bought my D7000 with the 18-55mm and the 55-300mm. I wasn't impressed with the 18-55. I would expect it to be pretty good with that sort of range. Very disapointing in my view. I sold it easily as new and bought the 18-105mm. My feeling is that it's a better lens. Softish in the corners, easily visible if say a flower bed is examined at full resolution - a rather extreme test for many lenses anyway. This focal length range suits a lot of specific uses. That includes landscapes as wider and even 18mm is rather specialised for that type of use. It's also a good range for street photography and general use. I would guess you will change lens far less often and only switch to the 55-300mm when you really want telephoto. That one is actually a pretty good lens in it's class. You can see the sort of results people get with it here

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=13204

When you click on an image and view it full sized bear in mind that you would have to go some to get anything really significantly better.

Wide angle is discussed on here from time to time. A general view can be fairly expressed as good for low down angle shots where the camera is close to the ground and also good for photographing big stuff close up due to space limitations. To take full advantage of this wider than 18mm is ideally needed on crop but even 18 can be used the same way. Normal landscape work at 18mm can be rather disappointing, wider even worse. Often wide vistas look good by eye but turn out to make awful photographs.

John
-