Nikon 18-200 VR Lens or New D90 Body?

[castafly]

Assuming you currently have a Nikon D70 camera and two Nikon lenses – an 18-70 and a 70-210 – and you had about $800 burning a hole in your pocket, would you get a new Nikon D90 body or a new Nikon 18-200 VR lens?  I typically take landscape, nature, fishing, and family pictures.  

I like the D70 camera, but the LCD is so small I can’t really see what I’m getting.  I get tired of carrying two lenses around and would like the VR feature for shooting in low light condition.  

What would you do?

[Aaron Christensen]

tough call, but I would go with the lens, sell the others for what you can get, and wait for what might be coming down the road in terms of camera bodies.  

Remember, the D70 was a premier “prosumer’ body a few years ago.  It still takes great pics but is no longer the best option out there.  Why not wait until they come out with the D90 replacement and you would still have a great lens?

[matt boutet]

$800 burning a hole in my pocket and your current setup?

Used 17-55 f2.8 and sell the 18-70.

[Chad Simcox]

I’m not sure where you’re located, but if you’re in the US, I’d probably just hold on to that $800 for now. It sounds like you don’t absolutely need a new camera or lens.
Now, if your current lenses aren’t that sharp or you’re not happy with them, then I would upgrade glass first. I don’t know anything about Nikon lenses, but I’d be wary of an 18-200mm lens. It sounds like it would be great at first, but I don’t think a lens with that kind of range could be an illustrious performer. I’d research it, it may be a good lens and I just don’t know since I’m a canon guy.

http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.

http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox Instagram

[John Bennett]

Just going to echo what others have said with regards to leaning towards glass.

Im sure the 18-200 is a nice lens, its not my intent to suggest it isnt.
Spending close to a G for another lens of very similiar focal range coverage to what you already have, that isnt “one of the best” lenses doesnt make alot of sense.

Its one thing to pay the upgrade cost to go from your first lenses to one of the better lenses in a class (say like 24-70 f2.8 ) another thing to upgrade to a lens that one day down the road may, I want to stress “may” itself be upgraded from. Nothing wrong with an all purpose 18-200 type lens, the danger is that a year or two from now you want to get even more serious about photography and start looking at the high end glass in that focal range.

Just a thought.

Just another thought.
Double your savings and you almost have enough for a D300.

[Ben Cochran]

If it was me and that $800.00 was burning that hot, I would first have to measure the benefit of the 2 options. If you are not doing larger prints, the increase MP isn’t really gong to be of a greater benefit to you. The 18-200 is a good lens but it also is not the best, VR isn’t really as great as it may sound either. So, I don’t really see a great reward for either of these options and spending $800.00 just to get rid of 1 lens does not fall into the best example of benefit.

Perhaps taking some of the $800.00 and investing in a descent tripod so that low light is even better for you and placing the remainder into a glass of water, to keep it cool for awhile

[Author]

Posts