Art and Photography

Would you sell the 18-200 Nikkor?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 8th, 2010 3:48 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes

Would you sell the 18-200 Nikkor?

Gear:

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR
Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX
Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR
Nikkor AF-S 35mm F/1.8G
Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G

Nikon D60
Nikon D200

I have an opportunity to sell the 18-200mm for $600. Should I jump on it? The last time I used the 18-200 was on a trip to Asia several years back... and given I only had that and the Sigma back then, there was no decision. The 18-200 was the trip lens.

I'll be travelling to Asia again this year. Thinking of toting the 35 and Tamron. Will I miss the 18-200? Thinking too much to carry.

The bottom line is... selling the 18-200 for $600 a "good deal" per se (assuming the 18-200 initially was much MUCH below this cost).

Contemplating...
14 replies
Deal Expert
Mar 25, 2005
21359 posts
2178 upvotes
It would depend if you need the tele range on your trip. Your 80-400 is not exactly easy to travel with. My "general" travel kit is the 17-50 plus 70-300, which covers what the 18-200 does, but is much faster and not that heavy. Sell the 18-200, buy the 70-300.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
Kasakato wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 4:48 pm
It would depend if you need the tele range on your trip. Your 80-400 is not exactly easy to travel with. My "general" travel kit is the 17-50 plus 70-300, which covers what the 18-200 does, but is much faster and not that heavy. Sell the 18-200, buy the 70-300.
The problem this time on the trip is I have a 6 month old to contend with. Gear will be minimal at best. I'll probably take the lighter D60 as well. No more buying. If the 18-200 is gone, it's gone. I have until end of day to decide :)

EDIT: In summer, there are more reasons to keep the longer 18-200, especially since there was a side trip to Japan ;) Now, not so sure.
Deal Expert
Mar 25, 2005
21359 posts
2178 upvotes
Qube wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 4:55 pm
The problem this time on the trip is I have a 6 month old to contend with. Gear will be minimal at best. I'll probably take the lighter D60 as well. No more buying. If the 18-200 is gone, it's gone. I have until end of day to decide :)

EDIT: In summer, there are more reasons to keep the longer 18-200, especially since there was a side trip to Japan ;) Now, not so sure.
It sounds like the 18-200 may end up being your best bet. Its not a hard lens to sell, keep it until you know you dont need it.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 25, 2007
1726 posts
21 upvotes
Toronto
I'd sell, if you're going 2 lens i'd choose the 10-20 and the 17-50, not sure what you shoot in Asia but the ultra-wide is good for cityscapes and for HUGE sweeping landscapes/cityscapes, at least that's how i think.

I'd only go long for local animals, birds, reptiles and mammals on 4 legs etc.

10-20 is great in crowds just watch what's centered and what distorts but software can help a lot to "de-fish" images but you'll lose some in the edges.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
pmc wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 5:25 pm
I'd sell, if you're going 2 lens i'd choose the 10-20 and the 17-50, not sure what you shoot in Asia but the ultra-wide is good for cityscapes and for HUGE sweeping landscapes/cityscapes, at least that's how i think.

I'd only go long for local animals, birds, reptiles and mammals on 4 legs etc.

10-20 is great in crowds just watch what's centered and what distorts but software can help a lot to "de-fish" images but you'll lose some in the edges.
That's a good idea actually. 2.8 may be "fast" enough and I got the super wide covered. The Sigma actually has the hip pouch I believe...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jan 17, 2002
7105 posts
625 upvotes
Toronto
I sold my 18-250mm after finding I only used it when I travelled, and even then only ocasionally. Six months later when I went on a trip where I knew I would like something relatively compact (its my smallest zoom) with some reach at times, I ended up buying another used one. Atleast I didn't pay more than what I sold my original one for. My travel kit usually consists of 10-20mm, 18-250mm and 28-75mm.
Member
Feb 19, 2004
279 posts
18 upvotes
I just bought the 18-200mm~ I thought about the use of it it long and hard before buying as well.

At the end I bought it because I figured when I go around (traveling or not) I don't plan for what I'd see. Swapping lenses, walking closer etc are all valid options, but I always think I'll miss the window if I do that.
$0.02 :)
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
Well, with $600 in hand, I can get the Tamron 18-270 VC and come out even :) But I won't. Dang trip is expensive enough!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 21, 2009
1873 posts
881 upvotes
North Vancouver
Qube wrote:
Jan 7th, 2010 5:02 pm
Well, with $600 in hand, I can get the Tamron 18-270 VC and come out even :) But I won't. Dang trip is expensive enough!
You might want to check on some reviews of the Tamron 18-270 (if you haven't already)

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-t ... on?start=2

in the Verdict section: "...but if you're looking for high image quality rather than convenience you should look elsewhere." Food for thought.
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. (George Carlin)
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And monkeys do too - if they have a gun. (Eddie Izzard)
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
Funny thing. Today I took the D60 and the Tamron 17-50 out for some fun and it felt damn heavy (compared to D60 + 35). I can't imagine how I was hauling the D200 with the 18-200 around before. I'm still deciding on whether to take the D60 or D200 this time around.
Member
Feb 19, 2004
279 posts
18 upvotes
Well the Tamron isn't that much lighter:
Tamron 17-50mm:
Weight 15.5 oz (440g)*

Nikkor 18-105mm:
Weight 14.8oz. (420g)

Nikkor 18-200mm:
Weight (approx.) 560g (19.8 oz.)

But for sure, the 35 is a lot lighter:
Weight Approx. 200 g

Personally when I went from 18-105mm to 18-200mm (weight difference similar to going from 17-50 to 18-200), I didn't notice much difference, but that might just be me.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
charltonc wrote:
Jan 8th, 2010 8:38 am
Well the Tamron isn't that much lighter:
Tamron 17-50mm:
Weight 15.5 oz (440g)*

Nikkor 18-105mm:
Weight 14.8oz. (420g)

Nikkor 18-200mm:
Weight (approx.) 560g (19.8 oz.)

But for sure, the 35 is a lot lighter:
Weight Approx. 200 g

Personally when I went from 18-105mm to 18-200mm (weight difference similar to going from 17-50 to 18-200), I didn't notice much difference, but that might just be me.
Well for me, I've been pretty much using the D60/35mm exclusively and that is literally FEATHERWEIGHT combo right there. I don't think I could use the 17-50 on the D60 as it makes it front heavy... at least not without the battery grip. Granted even with the dual battery grip, it's still lighter than the D200 by itself!
Member
User avatar
Jun 21, 2009
215 posts
18 upvotes
been looking for a 18-200 af-s for awhile, but you mentioned that it will be gone this afternoon~~~

just let me know if it's available :D
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 14, 2003
2031 posts
45 upvotes
pandaren wrote:
Jan 8th, 2010 3:20 pm
been looking for a 18-200 af-s for awhile, but you mentioned that it will be gone this afternoon~~~

just let me know if it's available :D
It's gone. Sold it to a good friend :)

Top